1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 25, 1911, the land investigation division prepared in the Japanese colonial era, stated that B was assessed against the Gyeonggi-gun C, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”), and that B was classified into each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) following the change of land category on November 15, 191 (hereinafter “each land of this case”), and thereafter, on the land of this case, the registration of preservation was completed on June 29, 1957 under the name of the defendant as the receipt of No. 2943 on June 29, 1957. The land of this case was divided into each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) after the change of land category on November 15, 195 of the same year.

(hereinafter referred to as the "registration of initial ownership" of each of the instant lands; (b)

On January 22, 1903, D, the father of the Plaintiff, was born in the J-U.S. J-U., Gyeonggi-gun, and the Plaintiff’s fleet B died on July 7, 1937, and died on July 28, 1967, and upon death on November 28, 1964, D jointly succeeded to D’s property, F, G, H, H, and I, the heir’s wife E and children.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B, the Plaintiff’s fleet, acquired the land of this case on the original basis, and thus, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant as to each of the instant land divided from the land of this case is null and void.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, as one of the final successors of the above-mentioned situation, sought the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership of each of the land in this case against the Defendant.

B. (1) According to the above facts, the land of this case was under the circumstances of B, and the names of B and B, the Plaintiff’s preference, are identical, and the land research division does not separately indicate the address of B, the assessment titleholder, and is not specified, and is the south of B.