1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese occupation period, the land Survey Book stated that E residing in Gyeonggi-gun D was under the circumstances of approximately 910 square meters and approximately 759 square meters.

B. On April 5, 1922, E died, and the family heir F, who is the child, succeeded to E’s property solely, and the F died on April 1, 1949, and the Plaintiff of the family heir, who is the child, succeeded to F’s property solely.

C. The Defendant completed each registration of preservation of ownership on October 5, 1981, under the receipt of No. 21589, with respect to the area of No. 169 on March 18, 1958, which was received on March 18, 1958, and No. 1,498 square meters of H roads, with respect to the area of No. 132 square meters of G road in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the land of this case 132 square meters per Gyeonggi-gun G road (hereinafter “the land of this case”) was divided from the 910 square meters per Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, where E was assessed, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was broken out, and the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of preservation of ownership in the land of this case 1, which was owned by the owner of the land of this case, who owned the land of this case where E was solely inherited.

B. As to the land No. 2 with respect to H. 1,498 square meters (hereinafter “the land No. 2”), the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant was broken, since the land No. 2 was replaced with the land that was divided from No. 759 square meters in the G-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, the Gyeonggi-gun, the Gyeonggi-gun, the Gyeonggi-gun, the Gyeonggi-do, where the land No. 2 was assessed against E, and the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the second owner of the land of this case, the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership

3. Determination

A. The title holder of land under the former Land Survey Order (Ordinance No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912) with respect to the land No. 1 of this case has originally acquired the pertinent land. Therefore, the land survey division is in accordance with the former Land Survey Order.