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

A. The land survey division prepared during the Japanese occupation period with respect to the G-gun 1,421 of Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant assessment land”) is indicated by E as being subject to assessment of the relevant land.

B. On February 15, 1919, E died on July 17, 1940, F, who is the family head heir and the sole property heir, died, and F, who died on October 16, 1962, died on October 16, 1962, F, the family head heir and the sole property heir, inherited G’s property with 3/4 shares and 1/4 shares, respectively, and H, who is the family head heir and the sole property heir, succeeded to G’s property with h’s independent property. As H died on July 26, 2011, the Plaintiff inherited the sole property of H.

C. As to the land of this case, the short-term 4,289 copy of the register (west-term 1956)

7. 13. 13. Registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the IJ has been completed.

On November 2, 1957, the assessment land of this case was divided into 748 square meters and 673 square meters, and the name of the administrative district was changed on June 7, 2001 to “Magju-si C paddy-si 2,225 square meters,” and on December 16, 2003, the said land was divided into L and divided into 48 square meters and divided into 112 square meters on July 31, 201, and was divided into 2,065 square meters. The land was divided into 3,412 square meters on July 7, 2015, and was 5,477 square meters.

E. On May 4, 1983, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 28, 1984, on the ground that "property inheritance due to consultation and division" with respect to the above land as the successor of I.D.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including all branch numbers for those with additional numbers), Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the land of this case was assessed by E and the Plaintiff succeeded to E’s property in succession. As such, the land of this case divided from the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff.

The registration of ownership preservation and the registration of the defendant's transfer of ownership are invalid as long as the circumstances of E were revealed.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.