1. The defendant shall accept, on April 22, 1980, the Suwon District Court 1286 square meters of forest land B in Sungsung-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the Gyeonggiwon-gun Land Survey Division, which was drafted during the Japanese occupation occupation period, it is written that E residing in D was under the assessment of 1,052 square meters of the Gyeonggi Suwon-gun Forest Forest Forest in August 6, 191 (hereinafter “the mother land of this case”).

B. On February 18, 1976, B forest No. 1286 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was divided from the mother land of this case on 18, 1976. On April 22, 1980, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership (hereinafter “registration of initial ownership”) with regard to the instant land as the receipt of the Sungwon District Court’s Registration Office No. 25692.

C. E, the assessment title of the mother land of this case, died on April 13, 1919, and G became the sole heir of the above E, and thereafter G died on September 23, 1993, and thereafter the Plaintiff’s denying H became one of the heir of G’s property, and the Plaintiff died again, and became one of the co-property successors of the above H.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Evidence A (including the family number) and Evidence A, 5, 10, 11 (including the family number), the address is D at the time of the circumstance of E, which is the circumstance of the mother land of this case, and the address of the Plaintiff, the address of the Plaintiff, as well as the address of the Plaintiff, is also D, the fact that the name of E and the name of the Plaintiff, who is the address of the Plaintiff, is identical to E, and there is no evidence to deem that E and the name of the Plaintiff were located in the aforesaid volcanic Ri at the time of the circumstance. In full view of all the circumstances, the fact that E and I, the assessment of the mother land of this case, are the same person, which is the name of the Plaintiff, may be recognized as the circumstance of the mother land of this case. [The fact that there is no dispute

2. As long as there is no counter-proof that the situation has been changed by an adjudication, the person registered as the owner in the land investigation division for the cause of the claim shall be presumed to be the owner of the land and the circumstance has become final and conclusive. Accordingly, according to the above recognition, I, the Plaintiff, who was registered as the land investigation division for the mother land of this case, shall be the mother land of this case.