beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. The Suwon District Court Ha-nam Branch Ha-nam Branch Ha-nam Branch Ha-nam Branch 64m22 delivered on July 1, 1995.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition are the land in the name of H during the Japanese occupation, 600 square meters in the G-gun-gun-gun D (the name of the administrative district is changed to E, Hanam-si) and 706 square meters in G. The circumstance is that: (a) the land was divided into the land in the name of H during the Japanese occupation; (b) non-high Fist 600 square meters in 1,736 square meters in 1,736 square meters; (c) the land was divided into the land (D) and 64 square meters in 24 square meters in Ga-gun-gun-gun (the instant land 1) and 57 square meters in 1,84 square meters in 241 square meters in Ga-gun-gun and 241 square meters in 706 square meters in Ga-gun-gun (the title of the administrative district is changed to Hanam-si); and (d) Defendant 252 square meters in 157 square meters in Ga-Ga in the instant forest owned and 2574 square meters in m2.
3) As to the land of this case 1, the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership on September 2, 1995 with respect to the land of this case No. 35251 received on September 2, 1995, and No. 12709 received on March 15, 200 with respect to the same registry office, as the receipt No. 35251 received on September 2, 1995 with respect to the land of this case 2, H died on August 4, 1924, and thereby, P (the name before the opening of the name) who is a son and the inheritance of Australia.
H The permanent domicile is Gyeonggi-gu R.
P was deceased on March 23, 1963 and succeeded to S, T, U, and V, a joint heir.
S, T, U, and V died, and the co-inheritors agreed that the Plaintiff’s sole inheritance of the instant 1 and 2 land.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts, the network H, which was assessed on the mother land of the instant land Nos. 1 and 2, is recognized as the same person in view of the Plaintiff’s increase of evidence and the Plaintiff’s name and domicile, etc. Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as the Defendant acquiring the instant land Nos. 1 and 2.