1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs each share stated in the separate sheet of inheritance shares among each land listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 10, 1942 with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of K located in the Sung-gunJ on November 24, 1952 due to the trade on August 10, 1942.

B. As to each of the instant lands, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 20, 1996 on the grounds of the reversion of rights on September 11, 1948.

C. L was killed on April 21, 1990, and the remaining plaintiffs, who are the plaintiff A and their children, inherited L as shown in the attached inheritance share sheet.

[Evidence Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the plaintiffs are identical Korea with K and L, and thus the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant on each of the land of this case premised on Japanese appointment is null and void.

The defendant shall claim that L and K are not the same person.

3. Determination

A. A claim for registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of registration is to seek implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of registration, which is based on ownership based on ownership by means of restoring the title of registration, or by the true owner who acquired ownership by law.

(Supreme Court Decision 96Da47142 delivered on March 11, 1997). B.

The facts and evidence recognized prior to the identity of K and L, and the following circumstances recognized by A6, namely, the address of K in the certified copy of the register, i.e., the address of K is Sung-gun J in the register of register. At the time of registration, the address of K is the permanent domicile of L L, the permanent domicile of M (A-1), ii M in the removed copy, but Q, N, Q, andO

R. Comprehensively taking account of the fact that P is named by S each creative name (A1-3), and that L is called “T” as it was called “T”, it is reasonable to view K as the same person under the name of a creative name.

C. According to the facts of recognition of the property devolving upon the State, each of the instant cases.