1. In Jeju-si, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff, Nonparty C, and Nonparty D own one-third share of 456 square meters.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 15, 1913, the land of this case was owned on the land cadastre of Jeju-si (hereinafter “instant land”). On July 15, 191, the land cadastre was transferred on November 3, 198 to Nonparty 4 (1915).

B. The above network E and network F were fatherland, and the network E died from the land of this case on February 28, 1942, and the networkF died on January 9, 1956.

C. The Plaintiff’s attachment G was born under the chain I of biological father in Jeju City H, but was adopted on March 11, 1958 to the head of the deceased J and was adopted and succeeded to the deceasedJ in Australia.

The net G has a net K (L and unmarried death on April 15, 1981), C (adopted on January 19, 1981) and D Plaintiff under its chain.

All brothers and sisters including the Plaintiff were born on the instant land.

The net I (the life of the deceased G) died in H above the land of this case.

On October 7, 2016, the above net G died on October 7, 2016, and his heir succeeded to C, D, and the Plaintiff, and the heir succeeded to the shares of 1/3.

[In the absence of any dispute, Gap 1 through 7 (including virtual number)]

2. In light of the above facts and evidence, it is determined that the net F on the land cadastre is the same as J of the Plaintiff’s Yangyang.

However, if the family head died before the enforcement of the Civil Code, the inheritance of the family head's heir is the custom at that time.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da79053 Decided March 15, 2012). Accordingly, the instant land was owned by the network G, and the Plaintiff, Nonparty D, and C, the heir of the network G, owned one-third shares.

As long as the defendant contests this, there is a benefit of confirmation.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.