소유권말소등기
1. The defendant on February 15, 1994, with respect to the 430 square meters of the B road at Yangju-si, the Government Registry of the District Court of Jung-gu.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese Occupation Period, the name “N” was changed to “M” thereafter, and the “Ori” was merged to “Priri” thereafter, and D (hereinafter “C”) having an address in both States-gun B was 130 square meters prior to the two States-gun B (hereinafter “C”) and 430 square meters prior to the two States-gun B (hereinafter “instant situation-based land”).
B. On February 15, 1994, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation (hereinafter “registration of ownership preservation”) by the registry office of the government branch of the Jung-gu District Court under Article 7139 on the land of this case.
C. On April 29, 1939, the Plaintiff’s fleet F (F), died on April 29, 193, and upon the death of the Plaintiff, G independently inherited F’s property. G upon the death of August 23, 1961, and upon the death of his spouse, H, J, and K inherited G’s property.
In addition, as I died on December 10, 1976, I succeeded to I's property as his spouse L and children.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. In light of the following circumstances, prior to whether the assessment titleholder of the assessment of the instant assessment land and the Plaintiff’s fleet F is the same person, the fact-finding results of the fact-finding and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the name of the assessment titleholder of the instant assessment land and the Plaintiff’s fleet’s name as “F (F)”; the name of the assessment titleholder of the instant assessment land and the address of the Plaintiff’s fleet’s representative’s permanent domicile correspond to “YY”); and the fact-finding evidence was not submitted to both states-gun E when the assessment of the instant assessment land was conducted; and the Plaintiff’s name, other than the Plaintiff’s fleet F, was recognized as residing in both states-gun E when the assessment of the instant assessment land was conducted. As such, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’