1. The defendant's each point of the attached Table 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 1 among the land size 1,285 square meters in Gwangju City-si, Gwangju-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land survey division prepared in accordance with the land survey project conducted in the Japanese Occupation Period is indicated as D’s assessment of the Gyeonggi-do 1,042 square meters (hereinafter “instant assessment land”).

B. The Plaintiff’s prior deceased on March 20, 1970 while residing in Gwangju-gun F, Gyeonggi-do. The Plaintiff’s prior net E was inherited by G, H, I, and J, their children according to their respective shares of inheritance.

As a result of the death of H on September 3, 1995, as one of the above co-inheritors’ lineal descendants, the Plaintiff was jointly inherited the H’s property with other siblings.

C. On March 20, 1953, the land category was changed to a road as of March 20, 1953, the land category was changed from the land of this case to the Gyeonggi-do, Gwangju-gun, and the said K Road 322 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) became 1,064 square meters of the Gyeonggi-do, Gwangju-si, by going through the registration of the conversion into the area and the change of the administrative district, and was combined with B road 1,285 square meters on April 16, 2002.

(A) The part falling under the instant land among B roads after annexation is 1,064 square meters in part under paragraph (1) of this decision).

On March 14, 1996, the defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of preservation of this case") such as the written order concerning the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 13 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. A person registered as an owner in the Land Survey Book of the relevant legal principles is presumed to be the owner of the land unless there is any counter-proof such as the change in the situation by the ruling, and the presumption of registration of ownership preservation has been broken if it is found that a person other than the title holder was the assessment of the land in question.

B. The Plaintiff’s prior purchaser and the Plaintiff’s identity title holder of the land situation of this case sought cancellation of the preservation registration of this case on the premise that D, a title holder of the land circumstance of this case, is the same as B, the Plaintiff’s prior purchaser E.