1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) Of the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list, the Attached Form No. 1, 38, 42, 159, 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 이 사건 선행판결 1) 원고들은 2010. 9. 11. 피고를 상대로 수원지방법원 성남지원(2010가단37782호)에 소유권확인과 부당이득반환을 구하는 소송을 제기하였는데, 위 법원은 소유권확인부분은 각하하고 나머지 청구는 기각하였다. 2) 원고들이 수원지방법원(2011나40363호)에 항소하였고, 위 법원은 2012. 10. 18. 제1심 판결을 취소하고 분할되기 전 토지인 성남시 분당구 C 8,334㎡ 중 별지 선행판결 도면 기재 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㈎부분 922㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 도로’라 한다)가 원고들의 각 1/2 지분에 따른 소유임의 확인하는 판결을 선고하였다

(3) The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court (No. 2012Da103202) but the Supreme Court sentenced the dismissal of the Supreme Court on February 26, 2015. (4) The preceding judgment was premised on the fact that the instant road is unregistered and unregistered.

B. As the executive organ of the Defendant’s refusal to implement the instant road, Sungnam-si, which manages the instant road, refused to implement the said road by asserting that the instant road was part of the real estate in the attached Table No. 2.

C. 1) Of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table list, the part of the road of this case on the road of this case is over 6 m2, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 158, and 159 that connects each point of the 1, 38, 42, 159 and 66 m2 of the attached Table among the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 of the attached Table, the part on the road of this case on the road of this case is over 856 m2 that connects each point of 159, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 158, and 159.