1. The defendant on December 24, 1996, as to the 6 real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. The facts under the basis of facts may be found either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole together with the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 7 (including paper numbers).

According to the Land Survey Book drawn up in the Japanese colonial era, it is stated that E, who had an address in Suwon-gun, Gyeonggi-do on March 4, 1910, with respect to the 170 square meters (the land before the division in this case in the following below) and C 74 square meters in Suwon-gun, Suwon-do.

B. The land prior to the instant subdivision became real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 5 (real estate Nos. 1 through 5 below) as indicated in the separate sheet following the change of administrative district, area conversion registration, and division, and the above C Response No. 74 was the 6 real estate listed in the separate sheet (real estate No. 6 below) following the land conversion registration, administrative district change, and land category change.

C. After the death of E, the Plaintiff et al. succeeded to his property via F and G as his children and grandchildren.

On the other hand, the defendant completed the registration of initial ownership in relation to the 1 to 3 real estate under the receipt No. 19669 of April 13, 1996, No. 59123 of the same registry office with respect to the 4 real estate under the receipt of Oct. 4, 1996, No. 62392 of the same registry office with respect to the 5 real estate under the receipt of Sep. 2, 1997, and No. 79804 of the same registry office with respect to the 6 real estate under the receipt of Dec. 24, 1996.

2. Claim related to the sixth real estate; and

A. A person registered as an owner in a land investigation register for the cause of a claim shall be presumed to have been determined by the assessment of the land owner unless there is any counter-proof such as the change in the assessment by the adjudication, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da46654, 46661 delivered on May 23, 1997, etc.). According to the evidence mentioned above and the fact-finding results on the H surface of this court, E, the title holder of the circumstances concerning the sixth real estate, is the Plaintiff’s preference.