1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant B’s share of 1/4 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 10, 1970 with respect to the registration of converting the area into the area of 883 square meters in Busan So-gu M 267 square meters (the unit of June 2, 1977 was converted into the area of 1 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) and the N 24 square meters (the unit of June 2, 197 was converted into the area of 79 square meters; hereinafter “instant land No. 2” and the same refers to the instant land Nos. 1 and 2, and each of the instant land was referred to as “each of the instant land”), Defendant A acquired the ownership of 2/4 shares, Defendant B, and 1/4 shares, and O acquired the ownership of 1/4 shares.

B. The land category of the instant case was changed to a road on May 21, 1976, and the Plaintiff had its incorporation of each of the instant land into a part of the road site while performing P’s expansion work around that time, and thereafter, it has been entering into the general public’s passage.

C. Defendant A filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the possession and use of the land in the instant case in 2009 (the Busan District Court 2009Gahap20201), and the lawsuit on the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the possession and use of the land in the instant case in 2010 (the Busan District Court 2010Gadan26208) and rendered a favorable judgment from the said court, which became final and conclusive (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”), and the Plaintiff did not assert the claim for the acquisition by prescription against the said land in the previous lawsuit.

On the other hand, Defendant B filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the possession and use of each land in the instant case (Seoul District Court 2013Gahap1412), and rendered a judgment in favor of the said court. However, in the final appeal (Supreme Court 2014Da216850), Defendant B received a judgment on the reversal and return; thereafter, Defendant B received a judgment against the Plaintiff on the claim for the return of unjust enrichment due to the possession and use of each land in the instant case; thereafter, Defendant B received a judgment against Defendant B on April 4, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for the acquisition by prescription was recognized in the appellate court on the reversal

E.O (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on July 20, 1985, and Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L entered in the annexed 3 inheritance status table due to the death of the deceased, provided Q.