1. The defendant on December 12, 1995, as to each land listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) is the land for which B was assessed as the owner.

B. On October 2, 1948, the Plaintiff’s increased portion C inherited the Australia.

D Around October 2, 1948, between the wife E and F, G, H, I, Ha, and the wife, respectively, produced K and L, respectively. On October 2, 1948, F, the wife of the Republic of Korea, died first and succeeded to the family head.

Meanwhile, G produced N, Plaintiff,O, and P between wife M, and died on May 30, 2001.

C. Meanwhile, on December 12, 1995, the defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership of each of the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, fact-finding inquiry reply by the Director of National Archives, and purport of whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The parties' assertion that each of the instant lands was owned by Q, Q, the Plaintiff’s preference, and thereafter succeeded in succession by the Plaintiff following C, D, and G. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff sought cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant, which was null and void as an act of preservation of common property.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that since the assessment title holder of each land of this case and the plaintiff's preference cannot be seen as the same person, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

B. (1) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances revealed by the record, it is reasonable to view that B, a title holder of each land of this case, is the Plaintiff’s substitute.

① According to the supplementary table (Evidence A No. 9) of the Plaintiff’s house, the Plaintiff’s senior lighting is Q and the Plaintiff’s name is the same as the name and title of each land of this case.

② The old land cadastre (Evidence 5) of each of the instant lands states that S, who has an address in Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun R, was in the owner column. The name and address of the said owner’s column is the same as the name and address of the Plaintiff’s increased portion C.

③ On the other hand, the above supplementary table is the plaintiff.