2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. At the time of the enforcement of the Land Survey Ordinance on the Nuri-gun's Land Survey Ordinance, the Ministry of Land Survey of the Department of Chosun-gun's Land Research entered P and C in the owner's address column as Q in the owner's address column with respect to No. 283

B. The plaintiffs are descendants of S, the main body of which is the R of the wife population at the time of revocation of the red copy. According to the transcript, S's Chinese name is S.

C. According to the Twit newsletter published in 1994, V and W are written with U children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to U of the Plaintiff’s assertion, characters are S in conformity with the original copy, and as to U’s Chapter V, those characters are X on the original copy. In comparison with the original copy and the comparison, Q, a name of the land situation of the instant case, is clear that Q, a name of the Plaintiff’s land attachment.

Therefore, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs inherited the land of 130 square meters prior to K, 462 square meters prior to L, and 344 square meters prior toM, from the land of the above circumstances, the Plaintiffs seek confirmation that the Defendant has ownership based on the inheritance shares.

3. In light of the above facts and the Plaintiff’s assertion alone, it is insufficient to recognize that Q, the circumstance titleholder, is the same as S in a certified copy of the removed population R on the basis of the fact that Q, the assessment titleholder, is the same as S in light of the wife population R, and it is difficult to recognize the remainder of evidence even if comprehensive.

The plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.