1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Defendant Republic of Korea shall provide Defendant South Korea Bank with 1/17.0 of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1.

1. The reasons for this decision are as follows: “F, the owner of each mother’s land before the division, entered into a trust agreement with the Joseon Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mediation Trust”) with respect to each mother’s land before the division, and trust it to the Shipbuilding Trust. The Defendant Republic of Korea acquired each mother’s land before the division pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817, Dec. 2, 1994) and distributed each mother’s land before the division, but the ownership of each land of this case divided from each mother’s land before the division was determined not to be distributed, and the ownership was returned to the Shipbuilding Trust, and thereafter, the trust agreement between F and Defendant Bank was legally terminated, as stated in paragraph (1) of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

2. Determination:

A. 1) Determination as to the cause of claim: (a) insofar as there is no counter-proof that the circumstance has been changed by an adjudication, the situation as the owner of the land shall be presumed to be determined; and (b) the presumption of preservation of ownership shall be reversed if a person other than the title holder of the registration for preservation is found to have received the assessment of the relevant land. According to the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the title holder is the same person unless there is proof as to the exceptional circumstance of the name holder, in light of the following: (a) F, the circumstance of each land acquired before subdivision, the name of the title holder, and F, the name of the title holder, and most of the addresses of the plaintiffs, and (b) the same person, the name of the title holder, at the same time, shall be deemed to be the same person, unless there is a proof as to the exceptional situation of each

his presumption power.