1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 1913, the Land Survey Division for the Gyeonggi-gun Co., Ltd, which was prepared by the shipbuilding General Co., Ltd. and the Provisional Land Survey Division for the Japanese occupation occupation period, stated that D was subject to the assessment of Nos. 6334, 6330, 130, and 397 (hereinafter “instant assessment land”).

B. The 6334 square meters in Si-ri-si E, Yangju-gun was 2093 square meters in Gu-ri-si, which had been subject to the change of administrative jurisdiction, land category, etc., and the 130 square meters in Gu-ri-si, Yangju-gun, which had been 430 square meters in Gu-ri-si, which had been 430 square meters in Gu-ri, after the change of administrative jurisdiction, etc., and the 397 square meters in Dong-ri, Yangju-gun, Gyeonggi-si, which had been 105 square meters in Gu-ri, Si-si, Do-si, 105 square meters in Gu-ri, 174 square meters in Gu-si

C. On January 22, 1965 with respect to the land of this case, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed, and on January 17, 1985 with respect to the land of this case, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of M was completed on January 17, 1985.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”) D.

On the other hand, D's death on March 29, 1936 succeeded to D's property, N's wife succeeded to N's property after N's death on March 20, 194, and P's wife succeeded to N's property on November 1, 1953, after O died on November 1, 1953. P's death on October 25, 1992, the plaintiff and Qua succeeded to P's property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The presumption of registration of ownership preservation on the land to be determined as to the cause of the claim, unless it is proved that there is a separate person in charge of the assessment of the land, and the registered titleholder does not specifically assert the acquisition by succession, the registration shall be null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43417, May 26, 2005). Accordingly, according to the above recognition facts, the registration shall be null and void.