1. The lawsuit against the Defendant (Appointed Party) of the Plaintiff C and the Defendant (Appointed Party) of D and E.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased on March 30, 1987, the deceased on March 30, 1987, and the heir is the plaintiff A, the selected person D, G, E, H, I, J, C, and the defendant.

B. On May 2, 1987, the Defendant completed each registration of transfer of ownership in his name, based on the donation of April 29, 1987, which was made on April 29, 1987, as the grounds for registration, with respect to the land of 3535 square meters in Kimpo-gun L, and M forest of 4661 square meters in M.

C. On June 10, 1998, the land indicated in paragraph (4) of the attached Table was subject to registration conversion on June 10, 1998, and the land of 3535 square meters in Kimpo-gun is divided into each land listed in paragraphs 1 through 3 of the attached Table on March 13, 2004.

On January 24, 2014, the defendant completed the registration of partial transfer of ownership with the same day donation as the ground for registration with respect to the portion of 660/2092 of the land listed in the attached Table No. 4 to F who is his spouse.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The designated parties to the determination on the legitimacy of each lawsuit filed by the designated parties D and E shall prove in writing that they have qualifications or authority to take charge of the lawsuit on behalf of the designated parties;

(The latter part of Article 58 and Article 53 of the Civil Procedure Act). If the appointed party has not been granted the qualifications or authority to take charge of the lawsuit from the appointed party, the lawsuit brought on behalf of the appointed party shall be an improper lawsuit which is not equipped with the qualifications of the parties.

The plaintiff asserted that he was granted the authority to take charge of the lawsuit as the appointed party D and E, and based on this, submitted a letter of appointment of the party stating D and E’s signature.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the signature of the appointed parties D and E stated in the above party’s letter of appointment was made by the said designated parties.

Rather, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, D is present at the 6th pleading date of this case by preparing a written objection that there is no choice of the designated parties who appointed the plaintiff as the designated parties, and D and E are present at this court.