1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The 6,744 square meters (2,040 square meters; hereinafter “the 1st land of this case”) before J in Yangyang-si, Nam-si, the facts of which were based, is the land under the circumstances of K under the Land Investigation Ordinance;

6. 25. The register, land cadastre, etc. was destroyed at the time of war, but the cadastral restoration was completed on February 12, 1958.

F, G, H, and I completed the registration of destruction and recovery (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of recovery of this case”) on April 28, 1953 with respect to the Namyang-si 800 PJ (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) which was named as the District Court of Suyang-si’s District Court No. 822 on April 28, 1953, stating that the cause for registration is unknown.

On June 9, 2003, the land No. 1 was divided into 2,162 square meters before J and 4,582 square meters before E (hereinafter “the land No. 2”).

The Defendant filed a claim against the Republic of Korea for confirmation of ownership of the instant land No. 2 (the land category of the instant land was a river at the time) with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2015Kadan80742, and the said court rendered a judgment by accepting the Defendant’s claim on October 22, 2015, which confirmed that the instant land No. 2 was owned by the Defendant. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation as of February 15, 2016 as of the instant land No. 12881.

The co-owners of the instant restoration registration died from around 1999 to around 2002. The Plaintiffs were F’s children, Plaintiff B’s children, and Plaintiff C’s children, and the Plaintiffs were one of the co-owners’ successors.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) The effect of the Plaintiff’s restoration registration is limited to the land No. 2 of this case. Thus, the registration of preservation of ownership on the land No. 2 of this case under the Defendant’s name should be cancelled as the registration of invalidation of cause. 2) The Defendant’s land No. 1 of this case was under the circumstances of K, the Defendant’s fleet.