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

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

1. Basic facts

A. It is written that D, which has an address in C, a land research division drafted during the Japanese occupation point period, was assessed on May 25, 191, the Gyeonggi-do area Ebriju-gun, Pakistan-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as “defensive land”) on the 25th, 1913.

B. The above circumstances were divided into a daylight. Of the divided lands, the F Graveyard 506 square meters was restored on August 1, 1961, and the land register was restored on September 2, 1958. The land register was restored on September 2, 1958.

C. On October 28, 1976, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the G on October 28, 1976 with respect to the F Cemetery 506 square meters upon the Plaintiff’s subrogation application, and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 10, 1975.

On July 27, 1996, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on the instant land in accordance with the receipt of the High Government District Court's High Court's High Court's High Court's receipt of the register office for High Court's High Court'

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 8 to 13 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff primarily succeeded to the land that was divided into the instant land through G (HC 24), G (25), J (26), K (27), and L (28). As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the presumption power of registration of ownership preservation on the instant land was broken, and that registration of ownership preservation was registered for the invalidation of the cause thereof, and sought cancellation of registration of ownership preservation against the Defendant.

Therefore, according to the records of evidence Nos. 1 through 6 as to whether D and the Plaintiff’s line G are the same person, the following facts are the same as the Plaintiff’s line M’s name as D and the Plaintiff’s line G’s line M, the circumstance name is the same as D’s address and the Plaintiff’s prior domicile is the same as that of the Plaintiff’s line M., and the circumstance is that the ownership transfer registration for F cemetery 506 square as divided from the land was completed.