Text
1. Of each land listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:
A. As to Defendant E’s share 3/11, Defendant B, C, D, and F, respectively.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Nonparty G completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 3, 1968 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Apr. 29, 1980; Act No. 3094, Apr. 3, 1968; Act No. 3094, Apr. 3, 1968; Act No. 3097, Apr. 3, 1968; Act No. 3087, Apr. 3, 1968; Act No. 3094, Apr. 3, 1968; Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 197); and
[A Evidence Nos. 11 (including paper numbers), Nos. 7 and 8 (including paper numbers)]
On April 27, 1990, the Plaintiff received a provisional injunction against the disposal of real estate (i) and (ii) land from G on September 4, 1990. On December 24, 1990, the Plaintiff filed an application with Msan District Court for the cancellation of the execution. On June 14, 1993, the Plaintiff received a provisional injunction against the disposal of real estate (i) and (iii) land from Msan District Court on June 14, 1993. On March 31, 2005, the Plaintiff received a provisional injunction against the disposal of real estate (i) and (iv) land as stated in attached Tables 1, 2, and 4 from G from the Changwon District Court on March 31, 2005.
[Evidence A 13 through 15, Eul 7, 8 (including paper numbers)]. (c)
G around June 1993, around 1993, prepared and delivered a letter of delegation to K, the representative of the plaintiff, to delegate the right to receive compensation due to the incorporation of some of the land into roads (including a provisional number). The plaintiff received the compensation allocated to G in relation to the land (i) around September 1990 and around June 1, 1993.
G and wife, Defendant E, upon receipt of a request from the Plaintiff to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) around June 1993, K, L, etc., and G recognize that each land of this case is actually owned by the Plaintiff.