1. The defendant, on January 1, 1996, shall apply to the plaintiff with respect to the size of 1293 square meters prior to the Innju City of Gyeonggi-do.

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up in the Japanese Occupation Period, it is indicated that C was under the circumstance around June 3, 191 by stating that the land of this case was located around B 1293 square meters (hereinafter “instant assessment land”).

B. The instant assessment land is currently registered for the preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant.

C. The Plaintiff’s prior owner D died on November 1, 1937, and he succeeded to the Plaintiff’s prior owner E alone.

E Deceased on October 21, 1981, and his lineal descendants jointly inherited the property, and the Plaintiff is one of the children of E, South-Named F (Death of November 13, 1997).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including virtual numbers), each fact inquiry result of female viewing, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments on the grounds of the claim as seen earlier, namely, the assessment of the instant assessment land and the Plaintiff’s prior representation, coincide with the Plaintiff’s name; and in particular, the land assessed together with the land at which the Plaintiff’s prior representation address was assessed and the address at which the Plaintiff’s prior representation address coincide accurately, it is reasonable to view that the assessment of the instant assessment land and D, the Plaintiff’s prior representation, as the same person.

Therefore, the assessment land of this case is the real estate inherited in sequence to the plaintiff, etc. by being subject to the plaintiff's prior assessment of D, and the registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name is the registration of invalidation of cause because the presumption of ownership is broken and thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership preservation to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts that the period of prescription for acquisition of possession has expired since August 21, 1980 since the land in this case was occupied and managed at latest.

As to this, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant occupied the land of this case for not less than 20 years.