1. The Seo-gu Daejeon District Court confirmed that the Plaintiffs owned the land of 1,455 square meters.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The cadastral source, which is the basic data of the land research division drafted on October 19, 1913 (2 years in 1913) under the Land Investigation Order of the Joseon-gun General Government (2 years in 1913), is indicated as owned by E.

B. On August 16, 1978, the parcel number and the land register were changed to 1,455 square meters in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant land”) as a substitute lot due to the partition adjustment.

C. The present land in this case is unregistered. D.

The F died on January 22, 1931, and G succeeded to family and inherited property, and G died on January 27, 1992, and the wife of the Plaintiff A and H died on January 27, 1999.

As H died on September 30, 1994, J, K, L, M, Plaintiff B and N jointly inherited H’s shares.

On November 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs and co-inheritors agreed to jointly inherit 1/2 of their respective shares in the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the land survey division, which is a public book for the assessment of the relevant legal principles, is prepared based on the field survey register prepared based on the descriptions of the cadastral source map, the fact that a certain person's name is recorded in the cadastral source map is a flexible material that makes the person into the cadastral source as an owner of the land. Thus, only if it is recognized that a certain person's name is stated in the cadastral source map and other facts are closely related to the person's daily work and the land, the person described in the cadastral source map can be acknowledged as being in the situation of the land.

(See Decision 9Da4005 delivered on April 7, 2000, see Supreme Court Decision 99Da4005 delivered on April 7, 2000.

Judgment

In light of these legal principles, we examine the instant case: Gap, Gap, Eul, Eul, four, five;

6. He may come to know by integrating the descriptions of evidence 12 and 13 and the purport of the whole pleadings.