1. The defendant is based on the restoration of the true name with respect to the area of 744m2 prior to the wife population B, which is permissible to the plaintiff.

1. Evidence 【Evidence” 1, A2, A3-1, 2, A4, A5-1 through 4, A6, A7, A8-1 through 5, A9-1 through 5, A10, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The land situation and division (1) C was assessed on November 15, 191 ( November 15, 191), 44, and 55 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the Gyeonggi-do GU-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

(A6) The Land Survey Board is determined by C to be 72 square meters and F 314 square meters prior to the Incheon-gun E in Gyeonggi-do, and the address of C is not indicated.

(2) The Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership of the instant land on June 29, 1957.

(3) The instant land was divided into G, H, and I on November 2, 1957, and the said I was divided into 1520 square meters and B, 744 square meters prior to I on December 31, 1960 (hereinafter “instant land after the instant partition”).

(b) An inheritance relationship (1) is written on a transcript of the J as a permanent domicile in the Gyeonggi-do K (Sin-si L) of Gyeonggi-do;

(2) J was a child M, N, orO.

(3) On November 23, 1951, J died, and M, who is an infant, had succeeded to family inheritance and property inheritance.

(4) M died on May 12, 1997, and M M’s wife died on January 30, 2009, and Plaintiff, Q, R, and S as M’s children.

(5) The heir of M made an agreement on the division of inherited property by inheritance of the Plaintiff on the land after the division of this case.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is presumed to have been under the circumstances by the Cho division of the Plaintiff, and there is no circumstance to deem that the ownership of the instant land was transferred to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff, the sole property heir of the J, seeking cancellation of the Defendant’s registration of preservation of ownership, which is null and void as the real owner of the instant land, instead of seeking cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership, the Plaintiff’s claim for

(2) At the time of the Defendant’s counterclaim, the possibility of existence of a person in the region cannot be ruled out fully.