1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. As to the land listed in the annexed list 1 and 4, Suwon District Court Lee-cheon Registry of 195

1. Basic facts

A. Gyeonggi-gun-gun, B, 709 and C 534 square meters (hereinafter “B”) were circumstances to E residing in D around 1911.

B. Land B was partitioned into 585, F, and G, 124, before December 30, 1958, and F was subdivided into 584.8, and H road 0.2, before May 20, 1964. G land was subdivided into 123, 1964, and 1, i.e., one road.

F Land was partitioned into 405 square meters, 96 square meters before J, and 83.8 square meters before K on December 7, 1976. G land was subdivided into 82 square meters before G on December 7, 1976, L Road 38 square meters, and 3 square meters before M.

C. C The land was partitioned into N No. 468 and O No. 66 on December 30, 1958, and the N land was divided into N. 0.4 and P No. 467.6 on May 20, 1964. The land category was changed by dividing into N. 0.4 and P No. 467.6 on May 20, 1964. The O land was divided into P. 41 and Q. 25 on May 20, 1964.

Afterwards, the land listed in the attached list 1 through 5 (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case") was changed through the conversion of the area unit.

E. The Defendant completed each registration of initial ownership relating to the land of this case 1 through 5 as described in paragraph (1) of this Article.

F. The legal domicile of R, the Plaintiff’s prior owner, is Gyeonggi-gun S. (Post-Change to T, U).

R Along with the death of April 29, 1927, the head of South-NamV succeeded to the sole inheritance, and V died on November 17, 1949 and the head of South-NamW succeeded to the sole inheritance.

W deceased on February 12, 1999, the plaintiff et al., a child, jointly succeeded to the property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 14 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As seen earlier, determination as to the cause of the claim 1 as to whether the title holder of the assessment of each land of this case and the Plaintiff’s preference are the same person, both the title holder of each land of this case and the Plaintiff’s preference are identical to each other’s name. The residence of the title holder and the Plaintiff coincide with D, and it can be seen that the Plaintiff’s preference and the name of the title holder were residing at the time of the above circumstances.