1. The defendant shall support the plaintiff with respect to the share of land in the attached list No. 1 to the Gu Government District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are siblingsed, and D are the mother of the original and the Defendant.

As cerebrovascular occurred on March 18, 2007, the Plaintiff lost its mental capacity, such as completely losing its recognition function from around that time to the day of the closing of the argument in this case.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant received from E on February 14, 1997 each registration of transfer of ownership made on February 5, 1997 with respect to 3,138/3,78 of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet.

(The shares of the plaintiff and the defendant are 1,569/3,780 for each land).

On May 8, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant was completed on May 7, 2007 with respect to the share in the land as stated in Paragraph 1 of the attached list owned by the plaintiff, as 35930, which was received by the High Government District Court of Suyang-dong Branch Office, 35930.

In addition, on October 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking “the execution of the ownership transfer registration procedure with respect to each parcel of land listed in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the attached Table Nos. 2 and (3) of the attached Table Nos. 2 and (3) owned by the Plaintiff” as to each parcel of land listed in the attached Table Nos. 2 and (3) of the attached Table Nos. 2016, the Defendant purchased from the Plaintiff on May 7, 2007, and thereby received the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant. In such a case, the Defendant merely stated that each parcel of land listed in paragraphs (1) of the attached Table Nos. 2 and (3) was divided from the land listed in the attached Table No. 1 and did not receive the ownership transfer registration for each of the above parcels of land.”

On December 17, 2010, a duplicate of the complaint of the above civil procedure was served on the Plaintiff himself/herself, but the Plaintiff did not submit a written answer within 30 days thereafter.

Accordingly, on March 11, 2011, the above court held that the plaintiff (the defendant in the case of the above civil lawsuit) had the defendant (the plaintiff in the case of the above civil lawsuit) with respect to the share of each land in the attached Tables 2 and 3 to the defendant (the plaintiff in the case of the above civil lawsuit).