A. Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”) was assessed against M on November 10, 1913, as the land divided in Sacheon L, and as the land divided in M.

The land cadastre of this case is not registered with the above M address, and this is currently unregistered.

B. N on April 3, 1921, whose main domicile was L, died at the above N’s permanent domicile, and on October 3, 1956, P, as the head of the aboveO, died on October 3, 1956, and as the head of the aboveO, died on August 9, 2002.

P was married with net Q, and was composed of the deceased R, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant G, and Defendant H as their children, and the network R was married with Defendant I and had Defendant J and Defendant K as their children. As such, the respective Defendants’ respective inheritance shares are 7/49, respectively, and Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and H were 3/49, Defendant J, and K were 2/49, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 6, fact-finding inquiry results from the private market, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the land of this case was assessed against M on November 10, 1913, and N, the Defendants’ shipbuilding operator, also considered L, the mother of the land of this case, and died at the legal domicile of this case.

Therefore, the assessment title of the land in this case and the N, the preference of the defendants, are deemed the same person.

B. Meanwhile, the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 2 and 6 comprehensively based on the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the fact that the deceased S owned and resided in this area, adjacent to the instant land. The Plaintiff was the son of the deceased S, the South-Namer of the network, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant land to set up a house around August 1943 by the deceased S, but eventually, V did not reside in the instant land, and the Plaintiff appears to possess the instant land, following the Plaintiff’s possession of the network S, and the Plaintiff all of the said land and the instant land.