2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The land cadastre was newly registered on January 21, 197 as of 142,068 of the river of 142,068 in Gyeongyang-gun C (hereinafter “C”) before subdivision. The land cadastre is written by the Defendant on October 1, 1953.

B. On June 3, 197, part of the land (E or F) was partitioned from D river 142,068, and the said D land was 133,424 square meters of D river.

(A) 133,424 square meters is 441,402 square meters as a result of a conversion into a post-scale area. D river 441,402 square meters is hereinafter referred to as “D land before division”).

On January 17, 1977, No. 348 received on January 17, 1977, such as Changwon District Court Seoyang Branch, with respect to D land before subdivision, registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the future against

(hereinafter referred to as the "registration of initial ownership") d.

Attached Form

The land described in paragraphs (2) through (10) in the list is divided into D land before subdivision after the registration of preservation of ownership in this case has been made, and the land described in paragraph (1) in the attached list is D land after subdivision.

(Attachment List hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case"). The fact that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The net G, the gist of the plaintiffs' assertion, was owned by the land in the area of the D land before the division (H and I).

However, on the wind that the Defendant without permission incorporates the land owned by the network G into a river, the said land was included in the land before subdivision and was assessed against the Defendant.

Therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership of this case should be cancelled because it has been made without any title to the defendant.

B. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the judgment net G acquired ownership of the whole or part of the D land before division, the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted without further review.

3. Conclusion.