1. The defendant,

A. Ascertainment that the Plaintiff is the owner of the land listed in [Attachment List No. 1]

B. Attached hereto to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The land survey division prepared in the Japanese occupation point period is indicated as being in the situation of E with the domiciles of 165 square meters, 293 square meters, and 144 square meters in each same Ri in Gyeonggi-do, and thereafter, the Gyeonggi-do Authenticity-gun F of Gyeonggi-do became Pyeongtaek-si G through the change of administrative district.

B. B Prior to Gyeonggi-do Authenticity-gun, the land category was changed and the area was converted into that listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

Although the land of this case is written on June 20, 1939 by the person H in the land cadastre, it is not yet registered until now.

C. The registration of preservation of ownership in each Defendant’s name (hereinafter “each of the instant registration of preservation of ownership”) was completed on February 13, 2009 by the Suwon District Court No. 3451, which received on February 13, 2009, as to the land of this case Nos. 2 and 3.

On the other hand, E, the Plaintiff, was living in the Republic of Korea, having a permanent domicile in the Republic of Korea, and died on January 20, 1954. On the other hand, on December 20, 1943, K, the above E, having died on February 19, 193, was divided into marriage and died on November 12, 1975.

However, on October 28, 1980, the above three South Korea L reported that the above K had inherited Australia due to the death of the above E, and the administrative office retroactively compiled the above E's family register with the above Australia's heir.

E. The plaintiff is the sole heir of the above K.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact inquiry results of this court's Pyeongtaek Ma-si, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the premised issues

A. Priority is given to whether the assessment titleholder of each of the instant lands and the Plaintiff’s increase in the number of copies are the same.