1. The defendant shall receive on October 6, 2004 from the Government District Court with respect to the land size of 734 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do.

1. Basic facts

A. The Land Survey Division (hereinafter “instant Land Survey Division”) prepared in the Japanese occupation occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of occupation of Japanese occupation of occupation of Japanese occupation of occupation of Japanese occupation

B. On January 1, 1978, 222 square meters prior to Gyeonggicheon-gun, B, 734 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”) was converted into the area unit on January 1, 1978.

C. On October 6, 2004, the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of this case”) in accordance with Article 17873, which was received by the District Court Decision No. 17873 on the instant land.

The plaintiff's assistance net D died on October 20, 1957, and the plaintiff, the head of the Dong E, died on March 8, 1956, and the plaintiff, the head of the Dong E, inherited Australia and property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, 6, 9, 10, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. First of all, we examine whether D and the Plaintiff’s lighting network D are identical in the land research division of this case, which are written as the owner of the land of this case.

According to the above facts, D, which is written as the owner in the land investigation register of this case, can be seen as identical to the Plaintiff’s assistance net D, and in addition, the following circumstances, which can be seen by the Plaintiff’s respective entries and the entire purport of arguments as stated in the Plaintiff’s assistance network Nos. 6 through 9, namely, the Plaintiff’s permanent domicile of the Plaintiff’s assistance network No. 9, was Gyeonggi-do F, but the address of D, which was written as the owner in the land investigation register of this case, was also C, and if there was a person having the same name within the area where the owner’s address was not entered, or within the area where the owner’s address was entered at the time of the preparation of the land investigation register, it is deemed to have been written in the above subparagraph C, so long as the land investigation register of this case did not enter the address of D