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

A. D was owned on October 20, 1914 under the circumstances of E E 317 square meters at the time of leisure around October 20, 1914.

B. On December 20, 1960, the above land was divided into F 159 square meters and C 158 square meters, and the above land was divided into C 331 square meters and G 191 square meters on April 2, 1991 (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On January 22, 1985, the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of Incheon-gun pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 3562, Apr. 3, 1982; hereinafter the same shall apply) on January 22, 1985, and thereafter, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was completed in sequence as of June 12, 1990, No. 8927 of receipt on June 12, 1990, No. 13297, May 8, 1990, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Gwangju District Court was received on May 29, 2014 as of May 29, 13297, as of December 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 4 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of female-gun as to the land of this case is invalid, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of H and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant is invalid.

The Plaintiff owned the instant land inherited by the Plaintiff’s father I from his father D by inheritance from the Plaintiff’s father.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the instant land to the Plaintiff based on the restoration of the authentic title.

B. The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of female-gun as to the land of this case for preliminary assertion is invalid, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of H and the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant are all invalid.

The plaintiff is one of the successors of the land of this case, and the share of 12/133 of the land of this case is different.