1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The land investigation department of Suwon-gun, which was prepared at the time of the Japanese colonial rule period, is written in the Suwon-gun land investigation department, stating that E who resides in D on June 29, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the “Gangwon-gun”) was under the circumstances of Suwon-gun C, Suwon-gun, 95.

B. On May 31, 1961, the registration of ownership preservation was completed under the name of the Defendant Republic of Korea on July 31, 197, and the area was converted into the area on July 31, 197, and on June 16, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on June 1, 2010 with respect to the area of 280 square meters and 34 square meters prior to Simsan-si on June 16, 2009 with respect to the area of 280 square meters prior to Simsan-si on May 19, 201.

C. On January 5, 1950, the permanent domicile of the original copy of the family register, H, the Suwon-gun of Gyeonggi-do, died and his J succeeded to Australia.

J again died on June 5, 1972, and there are wife K, L, M, N, and Plaintiff as its heir.

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 1, 2, 4-1, 3, 6, 7-1, 2, 1, and 2-1, 3

2. The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant Republic of Korea was completed without permission by the defendant Republic of Korea, on the ground that the Suwon-gun No. 95 of the plaintiff's assertion was owned by Suwon-gun No. 95 before the division into the land of this case, but the official record was destroyed due to the Korean War, and the registration of preservation of ownership was revoked. The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant Republic of Korea is null and void, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant Korean Land and Housing Corporation based thereon is also null and void. Thus, the plaintiff is a person of the circumstance against the Suwon-gun No. 395 of the Republic of Korea, who

3. The written evidence No. 6-1, No. 8-1, and No. 2 are alone, and it is difficult to readily conclude that E and I, the Plaintiff’s fleet, the assessment title of No. 6-1, and No. 8-2, are the same person. According to the fact-finding results with respect to the head of the National Archives of Korea, the Defendant’s name is the Defendant.