1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

A. As to the real estate stated in paragraph 1 of the attached list, Suwon District Court shall be the horizontal Housing Site Board.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate E in the attached list No. 2 was subject to the assessment of 4 U.S. Forest No. 1 group of forests and fields in the Gyeonggi Authenticity-gun.

The above F Forest was divided into one unit of H Forest land, one unit of one forest land, and three unit of one forest land, and the above H Forest was converted into three hundred square meters (1190 square meters) before J on February 26, 1956, and the above I Forest land was restored on December 26, 1967, and was converted into real estate listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) on April 6, 207.

As to the land No. 2 of this case, the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership on June 22, 1996, which was received on June 22, 1996 by the Suwon District Court.

B. The real estate K (K - creative L) in the attached list No. 1 had 423 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun M.

On June 21, 1949, the defendant purchased the above land from K for the purpose of distributing farmland under the Farmland Reform Act, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 2579 on March 10, 1969.

After that, the above M No. 423 square meters became the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On June 15, 1941, the above E inherited the status and property of Australia, which is the south of Korea, succeeded to the status of Australia.

The above K died on February 13, 1959, and accordingly N, succeeded to the status and property of Australia.

The above N was deceased on December 18, 1987, and accordingly, jointly inherited the assets of the plaintiffs, who were South Korea with the wife Eul, the plaintiff C, and C, the South Korea.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 18 (including each number in case where there is a virtual number), the purport of the whole pleading

2. The land No. 1 in this case was excluded from the list of farmland distribution, and its ownership was returned to the plaintiffs, the original owner of the land, unless there is any evidence to prove that the farmland price redemption and registration was made with respect to the land No. 1 in this case purchased by the State in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act.