2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The land research division prepared under the Decree on Land Survey in force during the Japanese Occupation Period shall state that E was under the circumstances of 15 April 1914 (Seoul High-gun 3 years 1914 hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”) as the land research division consisting of KRW 2,465 (hereinafter “instant land”).

After the division of 651 square meters from the land before the instant partition in around 1960, Gyeonggi-do, the Gyeonggi-do Government was divided, and then 2,152 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-do, Pyeongtaek-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) was made through the change of the name of the administrative district and the conversion of the area into a unit.

B. As to the instant land, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation as the receipt of No. 6135 on June 28, 1965 by the District Court of Jung-gu District.

C. On October 31, 1981, the Plaintiff’s Choyang-gun was H, and his permanent domicile was attached to “Seoul-do Goyang-gun I” (hereinafter “J”). On June 1, 1921, E died from the High-gunJ of the above Gyeonggi-do, and on June 1, 1921, K K died and succeeded to Australia and its property, and K died on October 31, 1981, and the Plaintiff et al., a child, jointly succeeded to the property.

On April 1, 1914, the Gyeonggi-do "Mayang-gun L" originally was the "Masan-gun M," and the name of the administrative district was changed as such, and the name was changed again from October 1, 1946 to "Mapo-gu N," after several changes in the name of the administrative district.

At the time of the re-issuance of the family register for K in 1962, the permanent domicile of K was also indicated as the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentO.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-4, Gap evidence 13-18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, E and the Plaintiff’s assistance division, the title holder of the land prior to the instant division, are identical to one another’s name, and D and D (L), the permanent domicile and the domicile of the Plaintiff’s assistance division, are identical.

According to the results of the fact-finding inquiry conducted on March 7, 2016 to the head of Mapo-gu, the Mapo-gu N has a permanent domicile in P, in addition to E (H) whose permanent domicile is established in P.