1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. As to the land listed in paragraph 1 of the annexed list, the District Court of Jung-gu District shall make a provisional registry office on the land in the annexed list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 1914, the land research division drafted by the Joseon General Government Division under the Joseon Land Investigation Ordinance enforced during the Japanese occupation period was written by the F (F and the address column were vacant). It was written that F (F and the address column were vacant) was an assessment of the land research division drafted by the Joseon-gun B No. 248, C preceding 532, D preceding 198, and E preceding 431 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The assessment land in the instant case was each land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) following the change of administrative district, area conversion, land category conversion, etc., and each land was indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land 0”). As to the instant land, registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “each preservation registration of this case”) was completed in the future of the Defendant, as described in paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1.

C. On the other hand, the plaintiff's family evidence G resided in the above H with his permanent domicile, and died, and the plaintiff inherited his/her property through the plaintiff's father I and the plaintiff's father J.

[Ground of recognition] 1, 2, and 3 evidence (including paper numbers), the family office of this court, and the fact-finding inquiry results of the National Archives, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In full view of the following: (a) whether the title holder of the assessment of the instant assessment land and the Plaintiff’s fleet G is the same person; and (b) one person’s name and the Plaintiff’s increased portion G is identical to that of the instant assessment land; (c) one person’s residence coincide with Kri; and (d) other person’s increased portion and the Plaintiff’s name at the time of the instant assessment of land was not revealed in Kri, it is reasonable to view that the assessment titleholder and the Plaintiff’s increased portion G as the same person.

B. In full view of the purport of the arguments as to whether the land of this case is identical to the land of this case, Gap evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to whether the land of this case is identical, and the area of the land of this case is identical to the area of the land of this case, and in the case of two land of this case, the land of this case is identical.