1. The defendant shall receive on February 16, 1995 from the plaintiff the Suwon District Court with respect to the size of B forest land B to 734 square meters.

1. Basic facts

A. The land survey division drawn up during the Japanese occupation point period is indicated as D by the owners of Leecheon-gun C, Leecheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, 222 square meters (hereinafter “assessment land”).

B. On February 16, 1995, the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership by the Suwon District Court No. 3569, which received Leecheon-gun’s 734 square meters of forest land B in Gyeonggi-do.

Since then, this land became a 734 square meters of B forest land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) due to the change in the name of the administrative district.

C. The F, the permanent domicile of which was established in E-do Leecheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, died on July 19, 1945, and his head Nam G succeeded to Australia on the same day.

G married with H and had the Plaintiff, I, J, K, and L as his child.

G died on May 13, 2008, and his spouse H died on May 14, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1, and 2

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the assessment land and the instant land are the same land, and the Plaintiff’s prior owner acquired them at the original time upon the assessment of F, and that the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership, and that registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name was invalid, and that the presumption of registration was broken, and that the Defendant, as a co-inheritors’s act of preservation of jointly owned property, has a duty to perform the procedure of cancellation of registration.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the identity of the land of this case cannot be recognized, and that the Plaintiff’s prior owner F and the land of this case cannot be readily determined to be identical with that of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with

3. Determination

A. According to the results of the fact-finding conducted by the President of the National Archives and the fact-finding conducted with respect to whether the land of this case is identical to the land of this case, the location and form of the land of this case are similar to the location and form of the land of this case, according to the overall purport of the pleadings.