1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) The Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese Occupation Period is written on October 1, 1913, stating that C, having domicile in the Gyeonggi Yang-gun B at the time, was the assessment of the land of 124 square meters and 4,117 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi Yang-gun D on October 1, 1913.

B. Since then, the above D land was the land indicated in Paragraph 1 of the current Schedule through the change of land category and administrative district, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed on January 7, 1959 in the Defendant’s name on the said land.

C. The above land was subdivided into the above land F, G, H, and I and the said G land was subdivided into the land indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table on May 18, 2010 and the said land was subdivided into the land indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table on May 18, 2010, and the registration of ownership was completed on September 27, 1963 in the Defendant’s name with respect to the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's assistant C, K's reader, and K's reader died before January 1, 1960. The plaintiff's assistant C died on October 3, 1968 after the death of his spouse. The plaintiff's reader died on March 28, 1967, and the plaintiff and his children as his spouse as of March 28, 1967 (the marriage report of December 30, 1969), and thereafter the plaintiff died on August 4, 1972, while the plaintiff was unmarried, theO died on December 7, 1973, and P was deceased on September 12, 1976, and the plaintiff and his children died on September 12, 197.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that C is the same person as C, who is the name of the assessment of each land listed in the separate sheet, and the registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name, which was completed with respect to each of the above lands, is invalid registration. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares in C’s property are 231/1,815, and thus, the Defendant made the Plaintiff a reason for the restoration of real name with respect to each of the above lands owned by the Plaintiff.