1. The claims of the independent party intervenor raised in the trial against the defendant are dismissed;

2. The participation of an independent party;

1. Basic facts

A. C, at the time of the Japanese colonial rule, was found to have a domicile in the Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun Bri, Gyeonggi-do W-gun 1,076 (hereinafter “instant assessment land”).

B. As to the assessment land of this case,

6. After the 25th of December 30, 1957, the restoration registration was completed on December 30, 1957, the F Return 294, G Return 261, H Return 521. The F Return 294 was re-divided on April 8, 1976 into F Return 90 and I Return 204.

(hereinafter referred to as “AD land” shall be referred only to as “AD land” according to each page.

As above, the name of the F land remaining after the division was changed from the Sin-gun to the Egyeong-gun, and the area was converted into the horizontal width, and on August 20, 1978, the land was entered into the Gyeong-gun Fran-gun 298 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). D.

The Defendant completed on February 2, 1996 the registration of ownership preservation (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of ownership preservation”) in the name of the Suwon District Court, Yang Jong-gu District Court, Yangyang-si Office, No. 2179 on the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, the fact that there is no dispute, the result of inquiry and reply to the head of the court of the first instance to fact-finding, Eul evidence 6-1, the purport of the whole

2. Determination as to the claims of an independent party intervenor

A. AE, which is a referenced by an independent party intervenor's assertion of the land in this case, has received a distribution of the land in this case and acquired ownership of the land. An independent party intervenor is one of the co-inheritors of AE and seek cancellation of registration of ownership preservation against the defendant as an act of preserving the jointly owned property.

B. 1) First of all, determination 1) the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in the evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 8 as to whether an independent party intervenor’s fleet AE and the consignee of the assessment land of this case are the same person, namely, the following circumstances: (a) the person described in the statement in the evidence Nos. 7-1, 7-2, and 8 shall be AA; and (b) the last letter is similar to the “AF”.