1. The share in each corresponding column in the inheritance share column in the attached Form among the share in the inheritance share column in the B-gun, Ulsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, 99 square meters shall be attached.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The former 338 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”) was the land under the circumstances of E residing in G on October 1, 1913 (Seoul High Court 4 years).

B. On February 9, 1961, the land prior to the instant subdivision was divided into 99 square meters of the B, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, B, 1961 (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. Around the time of the Plaintiff’s land situation before the instant partition, F resided in the G of the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and died on September 7, 1932 (Saeung 7 years), and H, a son of F, inherited F on September 7, 1932 to Australia.

F On April 15, 1979, the wife I and his children J, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, and S inherited the rights and obligations of the F.

I died on April 11, 2012 and succeeded to the rights and obligations of I by the said children. On October 31, 2014, K died and succeeded to the rights and obligations of the wife and children U,V, and W.

On the other hand, the O died on April 8, 2001, and her husband X and Y succeeded I to her husband X and Y.

E. The inheritance shares of the above inheritors are as listed in each corresponding column of the shares in the annexed inheritance shares.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 21 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant land is not subject to prescriptive acquisition, and it cannot be deemed that the preserved claim was specified because the inheritor who succeeded to the instant land is not accurately specified. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership of the instant land by subrogation of F’s heir is unlawful.

B. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff used the instant land as a stock farm from April 2, 1990 to the date of the closing of pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s autonomous possession is presumed (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). Meanwhile, even if the land category of the land is a ditch, it shall be subject to prescriptive acquisition.