1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall receive, on May 9, 1970, Suwon District Court in relation to the area of 367 square meters on E-road in Innju-si.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

(a) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (in a case where the applicable provisions of Acts are deemed to exist);

(b) describe the reasons for the claim as shown in the attached Form.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C and D

A. According to the Land Survey Book prepared under the Land Survey Order, which was a Japanese occupation, H having a domicile in the G of Gyeonggi-gun, which was a Japanese occupation, was the 587 square meters “1,940 square meters prior to the Sinju-gun,” through a change in the administrative district, conversion into the area, etc.

hereinafter referred to as “instant land No. 2”

2) The plaintiff's senior Ha, who was the plaintiff's senior Ha, died in his own sense with diverse forms of consciousness, including J, South Korea, and the above J, who was the plaintiff's senior Ha was deceased on December 27, 1920, after having his own consciousness K, etc., and died on January 30, 1942. The above K died on January 30, 1942, and succeeded to his own property, and the above L was deceased on March 5, 1962, and became co-inheritors and the plaintiff, his wife, M and son, who was his wife.

3) Defendant C completed the registration of ownership preservation as described in Section 1-B(b) of the Disposition No. 1 with respect to the land of this case, and Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the same land as stated in the purport of the claim on November 11, 2003. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Party A’s evidence Nos. 2 through 6, Party A’s evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (provisional number number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. 1) Determination 1) The presumption of registration of ownership preservation on the land to be determined as to the cause of the claim is deemed null and void unless it is proved that there is another person to whom the relevant land was assessed, and the registered titleholder does not specifically assert or prove the acquisition by succession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da4705, Jun. 24, 2003). The foregoing basic facts and the entries in Gap evidence No. 7, together with the overall purport of the pleadings, are as follows.