1. The defendant is about the plaintiffs' share of 1/3 of 450 square meters and 39 square meters of E-road in each night-si.

1. Basic facts

A. Yangju-gun F. 148 F.m. (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”) was assessed in Gri on October 1, 1913 (Seoul Two years).

B. The land before the instant subdivision and the H 321 square meters prior to H were distributed to J (K) with the amount of 664 square meters repaid in Yangju-gun, and the amount of 1,447 Hobbes, including 1,447 Hobbes, to be divided into 2,111 square meters.

C. The land before the instant partition was changed to the land category on October 30, 1967, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed on August 25, 1959 under the Defendant’s name. On December 30, 197, the area was converted to 489 square meters. On March 27, 1991, the land was divided into 450 square meters before the F and E road 39 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

The name of the administrative district of each of the above lands was changed to the Iririju-gun of Namyang-do on April 1, 1980, to the Namyang-gun of Gyeonggi-do on December 1, 1991, to the Namyang-gun of Gyeonggi-do on January 1, 1995, respectively.

C. On September 3, 1956, 1956, M (K) as the Plaintiff’s preemptive owner, the legal domicile of the Plaintiff was N in Yangju-gun of Gyeonggi-do, and this O, the only child living at the time, succeeded to the property solely.

The O died on October 4, 2013, and the plaintiffs, their lineal descendants, jointly inherited the property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that each of the lands of this case is divided and repaid by the plaintiff's fleet M (K). Since the plaintiffs jointly inherited the land of this case from M (K), the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the restoration of real name with respect to the shares of 1/3 of each of the lands of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant’s prior M (K) and the Defendant’s claim for distribution of each of the instant lands cannot be readily concluded by the same person, and it is unclear whether the Defendant J (K) has completed reimbursement. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim cannot be complied with.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff’s fleet M (K) and D (K) are the same.