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

A. The 2,533 square meters on the land in this case before the registration conversion was made is the land for which E, who had an address in Crith (current, the land is located in D pages) in the administrative district of the time around 1913, which was determined to be the owner of the land at issue.

B. The above land was entirely destroyed due to the incident of June 25, and the cadastral record such as the land cadastre and the registration ledger were entirely destroyed on December 30, 1965, and the land category was changed to “maintenance” on May 5, 1969 and became the land of this case through cadastral conversion (hereinafter “instant land”). Since then, the Defendant completed the registration preservation registration on the instant land on January 23, 1996 through the public announcement of non-owned real estate in accordance with the acquisition procedure for non-owned real estate acquisition procedure.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on March 15, 1947, the Plaintiff’s prior buyer died and succeeded to the entire property of G, South Korea. Since G died on January 20, 1967, H succeeded to the property of H, I, J, and K, which is its children. H succeeded to the property of L, M, N,O, P, Q, and R on July 3, 1987. On February 26, 197, I succeeded to the property of T, U, the wife’s children and children, and C, the wife’s children, W, X, Y, and Z on May 6, 2009, but died on July 26, 2014, and his children died and died on July 26, 2018, and thus, C succeeded to the property of the Plaintiff’s children and children.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap 1 through 8, 10 evidence (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of all pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The fact that the Defendant’s duty to cancel registration of preservation of ownership and the name of the Plaintiff F was the same as the name of the title holder of the land in this case and the Plaintiff’s increased portion of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 is acknowledged as above. Meanwhile, according to the above evidence Nos. 4 and 5, F, the Plaintiff’s increased portion of the legal domicile, is AD in Gyeonggi-si, and H, its children.