1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

A. The Suwon District Court's Sung-si registry office with respect to the area of 1022 square meters in Ma Sung-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the land survey division drawn up during the Japanese occupation point period, the land survey division is written by theO as being subject to assessment of 360 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”).

B. However, with respect to farmland parcels prepared by the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act on June 21, 1949, the land prior to subdivision is written as Q Q as a prop, and there is no indication that there was compensation and distribution for the land prior to subdivision in the distribution farmland register.

C. The old land cadastre of the land before subdivision was registered as the first owner, Q was in possession of a sale certificate of the said land written around January 5, 1948.

Since then on December 19, 1960, the land before subdivision was divided into 1022 square meters and 169 square meters and land category was changed into 169 square meters and land category.

(hereinafter “each of the instant lands”). (e)

The Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership (hereinafter “each of the registrations of initial preservation”) of the Suwon District Court No. 37784, Jun. 15, 1998, and No. 5451, Sept. 9, 1996, respectively, as to each of the instant lands.

F. Following the death of Q on February 14, 1979, S, T, Plaintiff J, K, and L, who are their wife, jointly succeeded to the property. Since R died on October 15, 1980, on the other hand, S, T, Plaintiff J, K, and L jointly succeeded to the property. On October 23, 200, S died on October 23, 200, and the Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and T, who are their wife, died on March 19, 198, and jointly succeeded to the property by Plaintiff F, G, H, and I, who are their children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The land before the argument was divided was purchased by Q Q from the perspective of the O, and at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act, it was recognized as one of Q Q’s own farmland and was excluded from the farmland subject to general distribution.

Therefore, Q acquired ownership of the land before division under the former Farmland Reform Act, and Q.