1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

The judgment of the court of first instance within the scope of the judgment of this court accepted the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership among the lawsuits in this case, and dismissed the part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of ownership, and only the defendant appealed against this decision, so the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the defendant's

Basic Facts

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Since E, the key point of the plaintiffs' assertion as to the plaintiffs' assertion, which is the preference of the plaintiffs, acquired the land of this case in original condition, the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was broken.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership preservation for the plaintiffs who inherited each share of the land of this case.

Judgment

Unless there is any counter-proof that the circumstances have been changed by adjudication, etc., a person registered in the Land Survey Book as a landowner whether the Plaintiffs had originally acquired the land before subdivision, shall be presumed to have been assessed as a landowner and the circumstances have become final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1773, Jun. 10, 1986). The presumption of preservation of ownership is broken if it is found that a person other than the title holder of the preservation registration was subject to the assessment of the relevant land.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da23524 delivered on April 28, 1995). On October 1, 1913, 191, E was registered in the Land Survey Division of Gyeonggi-gun, Yangju-gun as an owner with the assessment of the land before subdivision. The fact that the instant land was divided from the land before subdivision is as seen earlier, and there is no evidence to prove that the said situation was changed by the subsequent ruling, the circumstance is presumed to have become final and conclusive upon the assessment of the land before subdivision, and the instant land divided from the land before subdivision.