(a) In the Land Survey Division drawn up during the Japanese occupation period, C with the address in Gyeonggi-do-gun B is indicated as being subject to the assessment of 166 square meters and 107 square meters in Gyeonggi-do-gun D.

B. Before D’s 166th day, D’s 166th day was divided into the annexed land No. 1 through No. 3 of the List of Real Estate (hereinafter “No. 1”). E’s 107th day was subdivided into the annexed land No. 4 through No. 6 of the annexed real estate list.

(Each of the above lands has been changed to the same category as of March 31, 1965 and September 16, 1968, after the cadastral restoration was made, although the circumstance of subdivision is unknown due to the cadastral restoration around 1965.

The defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership of each of the lands of this case as described in paragraph (1) of this Article.

On December 13, 1956, C, the permanent domicile of which was established in the Gyeonggi-do Socheon-gun F, has died and succeeded independently to his property by G, the deceased on November 14, 1998, and I, the wife of H, son, and son, the wife of H, son, and son, jointly succeeded to his property.

E. “B” in the above land investigation injury was integrated into J due to the consolidation of administrative districts on 1914.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 through 6, 3-1 to 6, 4-1, 2, 5-1, 1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The title holder of land under the former Land Survey Order is the original acquisition of the pertinent land (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Meu1773, Jun. 10, 1986). If the land survey division was prepared and any group was under the former Land Survey Order, the title holder or his/her heir becomes the owner of the relevant land. Therefore, even if the State treats the land as the state-owned real estate and completed the registration as state-owned property through the procedures under the State Property Act and subordinate statutes, it does not belong to the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da53420, Apr. 25, 1997). Moreover, the presumption of ownership preservation on the land is separately assessed.