1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The land research division prepared under the Joseon-gun Land Survey Order, which was enforced during the Japanese occupation period, stated that D, who had resided in “Ycheon-gun Cri”, was under the assessment of Gyeonggi-gun E, Macheon-gun, E (hereinafter “land before division”).

B. Until August 1959, the land before subdivision was divided into 545 square meters in F maintenance, 60 square meters in G, and 294 square meters in B, respectively (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On January 5, 1975, 1975, the Plaintiff’s prior Dogcheon-gun H (hereinafter “Macheon-si H”) living with his permanent domicile located in Gyeonggi-do Ha (hereinafter “Macheon-si H”) and died. The Plaintiff is his heir of his property as the deceased I’s grandchildren.

On June 30, 1997, the defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership of the land of this case, such as the description of the purport of the claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the absence of counter-proof such as the change of the contents of the situation by the adjudication, the person registered as the landowner in the land investigation register for the cause of the claim shall be presumed to be the owner of the land, and the circumstance shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive unless there is any counter-proof of the change in the contents of the situation by the adjudication. In the event that it is revealed that there is another person to whom the land was assessed, the presumption of preservation of ownership on the land shall be broken and the registration shall be deemed to be null

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da94384, 94391, 94407, May 13, 201). The following circumstances, which can be known by the fact-finding, the fact-finding results with respect to the J-Myeon and the overall purport of the pleadings, are the same to D and the Plaintiff’s prior owner of the land prior to the division, the address of the circumstance-finding D and the legal domicile of the Plaintiff’s prior owner of the ship I are located in the same region, and the Plaintiff’s prior owner’s domicile is located in the same region as that of the Plaintiff’s prior owner of the land prior to the division, and D and D in Macheon-gun at the time of the Plaintiff’s prior owner’s existence.