1. The defendant is the defendant on December 27, 1996, with respect to the size of 595 square meters prior to B in Sung-si in Gyeonggi-do.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Forest Survey Division for the Japanese River Survey Center for the Japanese Occupation Period: “The information prior to 0.06 in Gyeonggi-do-gun B” is 1919. (former eight years)

2. 15. It shall be stated that D having the address in Ri was subject to assessment;

2) The above circumstance’s land shall be 595 square meters before B in Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”) following the conversion of the area.

) The Defendant became a party, and the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership as stated in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition on December 27, 1996 (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership of this case”).

3) F, which had a permanent domicile in Gyeonggi-do E, 1945 (fire extinguishing 20 years)

5. Along with the death of October 10, 198, G, as the family heir, independently succeeded to F’s property as the family head’s heir. G died on August 3, 1946, and H, as the family head’s heir, independently succeeded to G’s property as the family head’s heir. H died on December 2, 2002 and jointly succeeded to H’s property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff’s name (i.e., the Plaintiff’s name), the address of which is the name of the land in this case, is the same, and the address is located in the same area; and (ii) Article 31 subparag. 4 of the Regulations on the Investigation of Land in the Japanese Dok-in Provisional Land Survey Bureau (No. 33, Jun. 7, 1913, 1913), which provides that the address shall be omitted when the owner’s address and the land location are the same. Considering the fact that there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s name was in Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do at the time of the Plaintiff’s survival, it is reasonable to view that D and the Plaintiff’s fleet F are the same person. 2) The forest survey division is presumed to have become final and conclusive unless there is any counter-proof evidence that the person registered as the landowner in the forest survey division was changed by the circumstances.