1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The land survey division drafted around September 17, 191 in accordance with the land survey project implemented during the Japanese colonial era stated that the “E” residing in the said D was an assessment of the Gyeonggi-do Seo-gun Cap 586 square meters (hereinafter “E”).

B. From February 19, 1932 to August 24, 1943, the land before subdivision is for the inquiry and reply of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu who is the wife, such as the F-gun, G 28 square meters, G 141 square meters, H 11 square meters, H 3 square meters, J 2 square meters, and K 104 square meters.

Since May 1, 1918 when the Joseon Forest Investigation Decree was enforced, the method of setting a parcel number at the time of dividing land before the enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (Act No. 165, Dec. 1, 1950), barring any special circumstance, where the land of the main number is divided, the main number was attached with the codes, such as “1” and “2”, and the main number was closed following the main number (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15332, Apr. 26, 2012), and the F or K’s size was 586 square meters if combined, so there is a possibility that other land divided at the land before dividing is located, notwithstanding the written reply.

Since then, the relevant cadastral record was destroyed on March 20, 1953 due to the 625 column, and the G road was restored on March 20, 1953. Among them, the G road was the land stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On February 19, 2000, the defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership stated in the purport of the claim in its name.

[Ground for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, Gap 2 through 4, 6 (including paper numbers) and fact-finding inquiry letter submitted by the head of the Shi-Ma-Ma-si Office and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s name, “E,” which is the circumstance of the land before the Plaintiff’s assertion was the same as the Plaintiff’s fleet L. The Plaintiff’s fleet L succeeded jointly to M, N,O, P, Q, R, and S, which is a child, after the Plaintiff’s death on May 10, 1963. M succeeded to T, a child, after the death on January 5, 1973, and T, the Plaintiff died on August 3, 1981.