1. The defendant on November 11, 1958 to the plaintiffs' real estate stated in the separate sheet of Suwon District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. The land survey division prepared in the Japanese colonial era is the land survey division where E is the land survey division of Leecheon-gun.

B. F. The F.M. 679 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”) was divided into the F.F. 234 square meters and G 445 square meters in January 4293 (1960).

C. G land became 1,471 square meters prior to G in Echeon-si (hereinafter “instant land”) due to the change of administrative district and conversion of the area into the unit, and the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land on November 11, 1958.

A prop statement prepared by the I residing in the H of Echeon-gun of Gyeonggi-do on April 5, 1956 for a short-term period of 4286(1953) and the farmland subject to purchase by each prop farmland confirmation table, the I's number on the issuance report of I's own land bond is also stated in the I's prop report.

E. In the distributed farmland register kept in the National Archives, I state L/L as a distributor for the past 234 square meters, and I state the repayment period from the short-term 4283 (1950) to the short-term 4287 (1954) and the short-term 234 square meters (314 square meters) before the F.

F. On October 10, 1985, I had married with M on a short-term of 4255 (1922), and had N,O, P, Q, and R as his child, including the Plaintiffs, and died on April 3, 1989.

[Ground of recognition] The evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. (1) The plaintiffs' assertion that the land before the division of this case was owned by the plaintiffs I, the preference of the plaintiffs, and was purchased to the defendant by the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act.

The Defendant purchased the land prior to the instant partition and then distributes some of them, and possesses the remainder without distributing the land.

Therefore, the defendant should return to the original owner in accordance with the legal principle of returning the original owner.

Therefore, concerning the land of this case.