1. The shares of 107/360 for each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 to 12, 14, and 48 are the shares of the plaintiff A, and each of the 22/360 shares.

Basic facts are as follows: “each of the lands listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 12, 14 through 39, 42 through 48” is as follows: “each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 40, and 41” refers to “each of the forests listed in the separate sheet No. 3, 40, and 41”.

The F was in the Japanese colonial era. The cadastral record as to each land and forest of this case was destroyed and lost since 1980, but the land indicated in the Nos. 4, 5 through 20, 22 through 29, 31, 33 through 36, 38, and 39 was restored on October 10, 1980; each land listed in the No. 4, 5 through 20, 22 through 29, 31, 33 through 36, 38, and 39 was restored on December 24, 1980; the land No. 30 No. 545, Jun. 10, 208; and the land No. 37 was restored on March 19, 198.

(1) On May 26, 197, the owner’s recovery did not exist. G, the Defendant’s shipbuilding group, died on August 24, 1927, and on the death of Hanam H solely inherited the Plaintiff’s inherited property under the former common law. H died on January 6, 1967. At the time, the heir died from her husband, J, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, and L. L died on May 26, 197 without his spouse or lineal descendant. On March 26, 1984, K died of her wife M and Plaintiff C, who was the heir, and on June 24, 1927, she did not assert the Plaintiff’s inheritance agreement on the inheritance of the Plaintiff’s inherited property, and on June 26, 2017, she rejected the Plaintiff’s inheritance of the Plaintiff’s inherited property on the part of her heir, and she did not have any allegation on the inheritance of the Plaintiff’s heir.