1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the conjunctive claim is revoked, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is filed.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each of the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries or images of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, evidence 4-1, 2, evidence 7-1, 7-5, and evidence 11.

The plaintiff was a dynamic G of the net G, and the net G is the south, and the south is L, and Samnam is the plaintiff.

Defendant B is the second son of the network G, and Defendant C is the wife of the network H, the third son of the network G, and Defendant D and E are the children of the network H, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants are the relatives and relatives.

B. On April 2, 1981, the deceased G completed registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the network with respect to F. 1,683 square meters in F. 1,683 square meters (hereinafter each land is specified) in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 3098), in accordance with the name of the network.

C. Around April 23, 1994, F 1,683 square meters was divided into 385 square meters prior to K and 1,298 square meters prior to F (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 23, 1994 with respect to 385 square meters prior to K, based on the Plaintiff’s name on June 23, 1982.

On June 24, 1997, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance by consultation and division on January 24, 1994 with respect to the instant land under Defendant B’s name; on August 29, 1997, the network H completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase on August 26, 1997 under the name of the network H; and thereafter, the network H died, Defendant C, D, and E on November 13, 2008, according to their respective inheritance shares (Defendant C7, Defendant D, and E 2/7) as to the instant land.

E. The Plaintiff had resided in a house constructed on the ground that was located on the land of 385 square meters (20 square meters prior to the division and 385 square meters prior to K prior to the division and the land of this case as recognized earlier), which is adjacent to the instant land. The land in the instant dispute is the land.