1. The Defendants indicated their respective shares of 1/4 to the Plaintiffs on the annexed map of 942m2 square meters in the wife population H river in Young-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs shared 942 square meters of a river with a wife population H 942 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 615 square meters prior to I, at the respective 1/3 equity shares, respectively.

B. The Plaintiffs determined and leased the instant land amounting to KRW 1,00,000 per annum to the deceased J.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

On May 17, 1990, the network J completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on May 11, 1990, with respect to cement block block structure, studio 25.9 square meters in cement block structure, cement block structure, cement block structure, studio 81.6 square meters in cement block structure.

However, unlike the indication on the above registry, the actual indication of the building and its actual condition were different from the indication on the registry as follows: ①, ②, ③, ④, ④, ②, and ② (A) part of the block structure housing of the first floor connected with each point of the network J, was located on the ground of the instant land in fact, not on the ground of the wife population I in the light of the above registry, and on the other hand, as the building has been expanded, reconstructed, partially destroyed, etc. during that period, the actual indication of the building and its actual condition changed.

E. On April 20, 2008, the deceased J, and the Defendants, their children, succeeded to each of 1/4 shares of the deceased J.

F. The Plaintiffs terminated the instant lease contract by serving a copy of the instant complaint on the grounds that the deceased J was in arrears from January 1, 2008.

[Ground] Defendant D: The judgment on deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) by publication (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) and Defendant G: The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendants owned the building of this case and possessed the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs. Thus, unless there is no legitimate authority to occupy the land of this case, the buildings of this case are removed from the plaintiffs according to their respective inheritance shares, and the above land is above.