1. The Defendant confirms that the size of B river 4,582 square meters is owned by the Plaintiff in Namyang-si.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land was divided into the area of 4,582 square meters of B river in Yangyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant land”) in the area of 2,040 square meters, which is divided into the area of 2,040 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun, Yangyang-si, and the land of the said Gu was assessed against D by the Land Survey Ordinance, and the owner of the said land is written only

B. At the time of the war 25th war, the registry and the land ledger for the previous land were destroyed and thus, the instant land remains unregistered.

C. On April 28, 1950, the Plaintiff’s prior heir was found D, and on July 29, 1955, F, the sole heir of the Plaintiff’s permanent domicile, died on June 4, 2008, G jointly inherited the property of G’s wife H, children, Plaintiff I, J, K, K, and L, and on March 2015, the Plaintiff and the remaining inheritors agreed on the division of inherited property that the instant land belongs to the sole owner of the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including various numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The following facts, which are acknowledged based on the results of the fact finding as above and the fact finding as to the southyang market of this court, are the following facts: ① At the time of the preparation of the land investigation register at the Japanese occupation occupation, the entry of the address of the person under consideration was omitted if the address of the person under consideration coincides with the address of the land subject to consideration at the time of the preparation of the land investigation register at the Japanese occupation occupation; ② The name of one person D and the plaintiffs was the same; ③ the land name of the plaintiff was the same; ③ there was no evidence to predict the fact that there was the Plaintiff’s fleet D and the name of the person under consideration near the address at the time of the situation at the time of the fact finding; ③ there was no evidence to predict the fact that there was the Plaintiff’s fleet D and the name of the person under consideration at the time of the circumstance at the time of the fact finding; and

Therefore, according to the above agreement of inheritance and division of inherited property.