1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant Saturdays Construction Co., Ltd shall list the Plaintiff’s attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the five descendants of C, which is a clan consisting of D's descendants who set up the knife D's knife D.

B. On July 6, 2007, E representing the Plaintiff’s clan: (a) concluded a trade promise with Defendant Saturdays Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Saturdays Construction”); and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer claim on the ground of “sale reservation on July 6, 2008,” under the above provisional registration on August 1, 2008, the registration of ownership transfer claim was completed on the ground of the “sale reservation on July 6, 2007,” which was made on August 1, 2008, for the sale contract and the price set as KRW 10,215 square meters of f forest land in order (hereinafter “the instant O land”).

C. The land before the division was divided into each of the instant land on August 27, 2009, and the Korea Land Corporation deposited KRW 549,458,200 (hereinafter “Defendant clan”) of the adjudication on expropriation compensation by stating that the land before the division was divided into each of the instant land on the ground that it was impossible to identify the owner of each of the instant land when accepting the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”). On February 4, 2010, the Korea Land Corporation deposited KRW 2010 and KRW 237 in Suwon District Court (However, the address was stated as the “Seongbuk-gun Group G”, which is the address on the registry) or the Plaintiff Nandong Construction or Defendant B C C (However, the name was stated as “H in accordance with the entry of the provisional disposition right holder on the registry; hereinafter “Defendant clan”).

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 9, 10, 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the deposit money of this case should be attributed to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff should be attributed to the defendants.