1. The Defendants’ respective inheritance shares by the Defendants listed in the separate sheet among V forest land 28,959 square meters in East Sea in the Plaintiff at the time of East Sea.

1. Basic facts

A. At the same time, the registration of preservation of ownership was made on December 20, 1971 in the name of Y, Z, and AA with respect to V forest land 28,959 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Defendant B, C, D, E, and F are the successors of the Z, Defendant G (W), H, I, and J as the successors of the Z, Defendant K, L, M, M,O, P, Q, S, and T are the successors of the Z.

B. The plaintiff is a clan that is made up of AC 18 years of age AD and its descendants, and the defendants are the members of the plaintiff's clan.

C. The Plaintiff submitted a complaint on May 29, 2015, stating that the title trust will be terminated, as the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff clan, Y, Z, and AA, and was served on the Defendants.

[Ground of Recognition] Defendant K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, S (X) : Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the claim of Defendant K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, and S (referred to as “S” hereafter in this paragraph) was held in title trust with AB for 1/3 shares out of the instant real estate. As such, Defendant K and L, for each of the Defendants’ respective inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet among the instant real estate, are liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for each of the following reasons: (a) December 5, 2016, on which the duplicate of each of the instant complaint was served on the Defendants; (b) Defendant M, on December 8, 2016, on which the duplicate of each of the instant complaint was served on the Defendants; (c) Defendant N,O, P, and Q, on December 6, 2016; and (d) Defendant S (X) is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for termination of each title trust as of December 26, 2016.

3. Determination as to claims against Defendants B, C, D, E, F, G (hereinafter referred to as “G” in this paragraph), H, I, J, and T

A. The Defendants asserted that the safety defense of this case by the Defendants 1 did not have the substance of a clan as well as the substance of a non-corporate association as an organization that was set up by the Plaintiff for the lawsuit of this case. Thus, they are not capable of being a party, and the convening and resolution of the general meeting of the clan of this case are legitimate by the legitimate convening authority.