1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall have jurisdiction over the share of 2/21 shares to the plaintiff, the amount of which is 58 square meters for the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 14, 1975, the Plaintiff’s husband, completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of deceased D on November 14, 1975 with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”). -

D A. On March 4, 2015, the transfer registration was made in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant land due to the inheritance by agreement division.

B. The ownership of the building of this case - The Plaintiff’s - The Plaintiff’s Dominter and D’s Ma, the steering division, owned each of the buildings listed in Paragraph (2) of this case (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land around 1934.

After that, as E died on March 6, 1996, G, H, I, J, K, L, Defendant, M, and N jointly inherited E.

After that, G died on September 4, 1998, and P, D, Q, R, and S jointly succeeded to the above G.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap1-3 evidence (including attachment of a provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant building was deceased and succeeded to the instant building by G, the principal of which was the E, and thereafter, D, the principal, upon the death of G, succeeded to the building solely, and the Plaintiff inherited the building due to D’s death, the Defendant shall deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. As seen earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the inheritance relationship between E and G is identical to that of the instant building G and D, and otherwise, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant building was inherited by G and D in succession.

Therefore, since the inheritors, including the plaintiff and the defendant, jointly inherited the building of this case, the primary claim based on the premise that the plaintiff is the sole owner is not reasonable.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff is the owner of the land of this case, and the fact that the defendant owns the shares of the building of this case constructed on the ground of the land of this case can be acknowledged.