1. Defendant Korea confirms that each land listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 is owned by Defendant B.

2. The plaintiff, .

1. Basic facts

A. On August 6, 1913, Dong K, which had been an address in Young-gunJ, had been assessed against each of the lands listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 in the separate sheet 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant land 1 and 2”).

On the other hand, Defendant F’s mother L (Death on March 25, 1979) purchased the instant land 1 and 2 from Defendant B, the father of Defendant B, and the Dong K died on December 24, 1928. Defendant B is the master of the Dong K.

B. On January 20, 1935, the network L purchased the land listed in the attached Table 3 (hereinafter “instant three land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

C. Before the death of the deceased L, all of the instant land was donated to Defendant F, and the Plaintiff purchased on October 2, 1997 each of the instant land from Defendant F with totaling KRW 7 million, and thereafter, the Plaintiff went through farming houses in the instant land until now.

The deceased L’s heir died both after and after Defendant C, M, N,O, P, Defendant F, and Q, who are children. The O’s heir is as follows: Defendant D, who is a child; Defendant A, who is a P’s heir; Defendant H and I, who is a spouse, Defendant G, a child, and Q’s heir, and Defendant H and I (Death without spouse or lineal descendant) who is a spouse; and Defendant’s inheritance shares are as indicated in the separate sheet of inheritance calculation.

[Reasons for Recognition]

(a) Defendant Republic of Korea, B, C, and D: The absence of dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), machinery-type office, machinery-type office, entertainment Eup office, and the fact-finding results on racing, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

(b) Defendant E, F, G, H, and I: Each deemed confession;

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. First of all, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, and I is examined, and according to the evidence and facts of recognition as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant F sold all the above land to the Plaintiff under the delegation of the remaining inheritors as the de facto disposal authority of the instant land 1 and 2. Accordingly, as to the instant land 3.