1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the Land Survey Division written around May 23, 191, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, which was drafted around May 23, 191, the land survey date: D was under the circumstances of Suwon-gun E-ri (which was changed to the Friri in Gyeonggi-do, and currently, the administrative district was changed to the Silsan-si, Busan-si) 804.

위 사정토지는 농지개혁법(1949. 6. 21. 법률 제31호로 제정공포되고, 1994. 12. 22. 법률 제4817호 농지법 부칙 제2조 제1호로 폐지, 이하 같다) 시행 전에 원고의 조부(祖父) I이 이를 취득하여 소유하고 있었고, I의 장남인 원고의 부(父) J이 호주상속하였다.

On the other hand, at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act on June 21, 1949, Korea purchased the above-mentioned land from J and confirmed it as a distributed farmland.

After that, the above-mentioned land was divided on December 8, 1963 and was divided into 24 square meters, L, 780 square meters, and L, L, 780 square meters, which was divided into 604 square meters and M, 176 square meters on November 13, 1964.

On December 26, 1968, the Republic of Korea did not distribute M 176 square meters (hereinafter “the previous land”) to the self-employed farmer, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name on May 3, 1985, and thereafter the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 26, 1984.

After that, the previous land of this case was merged with the CJ 120537 m2, Osan-si due to an urban development project.

[The part falling under the previous land of this case among the above land is 582 square meters in the part of the ship (A) connected each point of the attached Form 1,2,3,4,1, and 582 square meters in sequence; hereinafter the above part (A) of the above part of the ship is "the part of the land of this case" for convenience] The J died on May 23, 1990, and the heir is N, N, children, O, P, Q, R, T, and the plaintiff.

Since the land portion of this case is the land purchased by the Republic of Korea for the distribution of farmland but not distributed after the purchase, its ownership should be returned to the heir of J, the original owner.

Therefore, the defendant's land portion of this case.