1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A, B, C, and D shall succeed to the shares of Attached 2 among the real estate indicated in paragraph 1 of the indication of Attached 1.

1. Claims against the Defendants other than Defendant 1 through 4

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) As to Defendant I and U: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)3) (2) as to the remainder of the Defendants: Judgment of confession (Article 208(3)2 of the same Act);

2. Claims against the defendant 1 through 4;

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, 4, 5 of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-5 of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 1, 3-1 of the real estate No. 1 (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”) was owned by the above Defendants’ deceased on May 27, 1992, the above Defendants inherited the real estate as indicated in the No. 2 inheritance shares No. 1 of the above Defendants’ deceased on May 27, 1992, 2, South-North national expressway was designated as a motorway route on December 8, 1971. The real estate of this case was included in the remaining motorway site as determined and announced as a road zone on May 4, 197; the Plaintiff paid compensation to V at least since that time, the Plaintiff continued to use the real estate of this case from December 131, 13, 197.

As to this, the above Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff did not have paid compensation, and therefore the possession should not be recognized. However, according to the evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff paid 636,400 won as compensation. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

B. According to the theory of lawsuit, the above Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on November 14, 1993 with respect to their inheritance share ratio among the instant real estate on the grounds of the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants.