beta
Text
1. Of each land listed in the separate sheet, 6/17 shares are confirmed to be owned by the Plaintiff.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) is a land in which C residing in Gyeonggi-gun B around June 1918, which was at the time of the land investigation, was considered as its owner and remains unregistered at the time of the 625 incident.
B. The plaintiff's increase and decrease of D, a domicile in the Gyeonggi-gun E, was deceased, and F (G) who is the family heir as the head of F (G) inherited the property independently. On April 17, 1979, the above F was the death of F (I, other children of F, died on September 20, 195), and H was the sole heir of H (I, other children of F, died on June 26, 1985), and died on June 26, 1985, and jointly inherited L, a wife, the plaintiff of J, the South-North, the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the Republic of Korea, and the plaintiff of the Republic of Korea, and his children died on November 16, 200, and the J succeeded jointly with the plaintiff, his children, and the above L and the above children jointly inherited.
【Court-Appellants 1, 2, 3, 4-1 through 4, 5, 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings, without any dispute over the grounds for recognition
2. The allegations and judgment of the parties
A. The plaintiff asserted that each of the lands of this case is inherited to the plaintiff et al. through F and H after acquiring the ownership from the plaintiff's prior owner under the circumstances of D, which is the plaintiff's prior owner. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that as one of the co-owners of this case, the plaintiff is seeking confirmation of ownership of the plaintiff's own share among the lands of this case.
In regard to this, the Defendant is unclear whether the Plaintiff’s fleet D resided in the Gyeonggi-ri-gun, Gyeonggi-do at the time of the land investigation into each of the instant land, and whether the Plaintiff was alive at the time, and the family register submitted by the Plaintiff to prove the time of death of the said D cannot be trusted with the removal of the family register and the Chinese name. In addition, the family register report prepared after May 15, 1938, which was claimed by the Plaintiff as the time of death of the said D, was also made on the classification report for the use of public forest.