A. The Land Survey Division (hereinafter “instant Land Survey Division”) of the Female-gun B, which was prepared in the Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation, Japanese occupation of ship, Japanese occupation of ship, Japanese occupation of ship, Japanese occupation of ship, Japanese occupation of ship, and Japanese occupation of ship, Japanese occupation of ship, Japanese occupation of ship, and Japanese occupation of ship, Japanese occupation of ship, and Japanese occupation of ship, Japanese occupation of ship, and Japanese occupation of ship, Japanese occupation of ship, etc. (hereinafter “instant land Survey Division”).

B. F.F. 279 F.M. was divided from the land before the instant subdivision, and the land category was changed thereafter, and real estate stated in the separate sheet was changed following the conversion of the area and the change of administrative district.

C. On August 25, 1980, the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of this case”) on real estate listed in the separate sheet.

The Plaintiff’s father E died on July 15, 1960, and the Plaintiff, G, H, and I succeeded to their property.

[Based on recognition] Evidence A 1, Evidence A 2-4, evidence A 3-4, evidence A 4-6, evidence A 5 and 6-6, evidence A 9-1 and evidence A 9-2, inquiry results on the leisure market of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the real estate listed in the separate sheet was the land in which the plaintiff's father E was under the circumstances, the registration of preservation of this case in the name of the defendant should be cancelled due to the invalidity of the cause. The plaintiff asserts that as co-inheritors of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the plaintiff sought cancellation of the registration of preservation

In this regard, the defendant asserts that E, which is indicated in the land research division of this case as the owner of the land before the division of this case, cannot be readily concluded as the plaintiff's father E and the same person

B. First, we examine whether E and the Plaintiff’s father network E are identical in the land research division of this case, which are written as the owner of the land before the instant partition.

According to the above facts, E recorded as the owner in the land investigation register of this case can be seen as identical to the Plaintiff’s father E and the Plaintiff’s father E and the Plaintiff’s father’s name, and in addition, each entry and the entire pleadings of evidence A No. 9-1.