1. The defendant is based on each real estate stated in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, as stated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Gyeonggi E-si Co., Ltd. 1,098 (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”) was divided into D 461 square meters (hereinafter “instant D”) on August 12, 1957, E 373 square meters (hereinafter “instant E”) and F 264 square meters (hereinafter “F land”). The instant land was divided into one real estate listed in the attached list in the change of the name of the administrative district and the size of the area, and the instant F land was divided into one real estate in the form of a unit conversion into the name of the administrative district and the size of the area. After the division on July 10, 1986, the instant land was divided into two, three, and four real estate listed in the attached list due to the change of the name of the administrative district, area conversion, and land category.

B. On December 16, 1968, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on June 21, 1949 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “registration of ownership transfer”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet on December 16, 1968.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 3-1 to 5, Gap evidence 5-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was the owner of the land before the division of this case. The defendant purchased the land before the division of this case from the plaintiff pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act on the ground that the land before the division of this case was non-self-owned farmland, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case without distributing it to the plaintiff self-employed farmer even though the consignee gave up reimbursement. Accordingly, the defendant's purchase measures for the land E and F were cancelled, and the ownership transfer registration of this case was returned to the plaintiff who is the original owner, and the ownership transfer registration of this case is null and void. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet to

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff was the owner of the land before the division of this case, and even if not, the prescriptive acquisition of each real estate listed in the separate sheet was completed.

(b) Determination 1 on the grounds of claim.