1. The defendant shall provide to the plaintiffs with each share listed in the separate sheet No. 3, and real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese occupation occupation period, X with the address in the “Grain-gun W,” stated that X was under the assessment of the YY 1,570 square meters prior to the instant partition (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).

B. Thereafter, the land before the instant subdivision was divided into 382 square meters prior to the Z (hereinafter “instant land”), 965 square meters prior to AB (hereinafter “AB”), and 223 square meters prior to AC (hereinafter “AC land”), respectively.

C. On April 10, 1957, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on the instant land as the receipt of Suwon District Court's Suwon District Court's receipt of 1540. D.

In the old land cadastre concerning the land of this case, each of the following are written: X’s assessment as described in the above paragraph, and the land of this case was divided on October 14, 1957 (Short 4290) and written down 2 and 3 at this time.

E. On October 19, 1918, the deceased on October 19, 1918 and the descendants inherited the above X’s property in succession, such as the heir’s report and inheritance shares in the attached Table 2, and finally, each co-inheritors became co-inheritors at the ratio of inheritance shares, such as the above attached Table 8.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-12, Eul evidence Nos. 16 and 17 (including above numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, X, the name of the situation of the land before the division of this case, X and X, the plaintiffs' preference, are identical to Chinese name, and its address and permanent domicile are the same as "Uin-gun W," and it does not appear that there was no evidence to prove that there was a person with the same name as the plaintiffs' prior to the division of this case, as it can be acknowledged in the result of the inquiry into the fact of AE Eup, and there is no other circumstance that there was a Dong name.