1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to the real estate listed in the annex 1 list, Defendant B, the Daegu District Court, as to the real estate, and Defendant B, as to the office of registration office, 1973.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a clan that has set up AM as a common ancestor.

B. Each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) was owned by the original NN, AO, AP, and Q.

C. On May 1, 1973, the Plaintiff purchased 1 real estate listed in the Appendix 1 List from AO on August 18, 1971, 2 real estate listed in the Appendix 1 List from AO on August 15, 1971, 3 real estate listed in the Appendix 1 List from AP on August 15, 1971, and 4 real estate listed in the Appendix 1 List from AV on November 27, 1972.

However, when the registration of ownership transfer is completed, Defendant B registered under the name of “AT” or “AV” (a “AV” and its wife) without registering under the name of the Plaintiff, Defendant B registered under the name of “AT” or “AV” (a “AV”).

Therefore, the real estate listed in the attached list 1 is AS for the real estate, 2 real estate listed in the attached list 1 is AS for the real estate, 3 real estate listed in the attached list 1 is AR for the real estate, and 4 real estate listed in the attached list 1 is AS for each ownership transfer registration.

NN died on April 17, 1996, AO on March 24, 1991, AP on May 10, 1976, AP on November 15, 1985, respectively.

The heir of AO has the AO, J, and K respectively, and their inheritance shares are 1/3, respectively, and the heir of N, AP, and Q and their inheritance shares are as shown in attached Form 2, 3, and 4.

[Ground] DefendantO: The facts without dispute, each of the statements (including the paper numbers) in Gap1 through 18, the purport of the whole pleadings, as to defendant D, L, M, N, P, P, U, W, AE: each of the statements (including the paper numbers) in Gap1 to 10, and the remaining purport of the whole pleadings: confession or confession

2. DefendantO asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful on the grounds that there is no record of the Plaintiff’s convening a clan general meeting to appoint its representative, and that the lawsuit of this case was not made by the resolution of the clan general meeting, and that the lawsuit of this case is not unlawful, since it did not have the Plaintiff’s power of representation.

In full view of the respective statements and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff held a clan general meeting on June 3, 2017 and held B.