A. The Defendant Republic of Korea is with respect to the area of 321 square meters prior to the wife population C and the area of 49 square meters prior to D.

A. E was subject to an assessment of 352 square meters (hereinafter “instant assessment land”) in the Japanese colonial era, the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do.

The land which was divided into three hundred and twenty-one square meters prior to the wife population C (hereinafter referred to as the “one land”) and forty thousand square meters prior to D (hereinafter referred to as the “two-dimensional land”) is the land that was divided from the above circumstance to the following reasons:

The assessment of land is: (a) distribution of farmland of 104 square meters prior to the instant land D, 499 square meters prior to the instant land D, 204 square meters, 352 square meters prior to the subdivision in 1957 and 2012, 352 square meters prior to the subdivision in 2012, F; and

B. As to the land of this case 1 and 2, Defendant Republic of Korea completed the registration of initial ownership on June 22, 1957 by the Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, port of registry office, and the receipt No. 2877.

Defendant Republic of Korea sold the instant two land to Defendant B on September 21, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name on November 19, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the identity of the assessment titleholder and the Plaintiff’s prior representative should be revoked due to the invalidation of the cause, since E, the assessment titleholder, originally acquired the land of this case 1 and 2 as the Plaintiff’s prior election.

B) As to this, Defendant Republic of Korea denies denies and Plaintiff’s fleet H may not be regarded as the same person. 2) In full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s high-ranking division, based on the Plaintiff’s records as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10 through 12; (b) the fact-finding response results and the entire purport of the argument, including the fact-finding response of the first page I at the K, H, L, M 4; (b) the name of one on the Gu’s family register of J, Nam, while the name of one on the Plaintiff’s family register of J, J, as “H”, was considered as “E”; (c) the J was under the circumstances of 249 square meters adjacent to the land of this case; (d) the land investigation injury of the aboveO; and (v) the legal domicile of J and H both were public figures.