1. The defendant on March 23, 1985, as to the land specified in the attached list No. 7, as to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The land research division of the Gyeonggi-do Yangyang-gun C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “E”) prepared by the Joseon-do Ministry of Land Survey in accordance with the Decree on Land Survey in force during the Japanese Occupation Period as set out in the attached List No. 7 (1) stated that the “E” residing in the “D” was under the circumstances around June 1, 1914 (Seoul High-do 3 years).

(2) On September 27, 1984, the land before the instant partition was divided into the land No. 7 as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant, on October 11, 1985, filed a registration of initial ownership relating to the instant land as indicated in the order.

C. On January 31, 1934, E, an inheritance-related Plaintiff’s high aid division, died, and succeeded to the Plaintiff’s property F, an inheritance-related Plaintiff’s increased aid division (“F, which is indicated as G in the original copy, and deemed as false transfer to F), and the F died on September 17, 1936, and the Plaintiff’s denial of property inherited the Plaintiff’s property.

H died on November 20, 1979, and the Plaintiff et al. jointly inherited the property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and determination on the instant land

A. (1) In the event of the occurrence of the duty to cancel the registration of preservation of ownership, the title holder of the land under the former Decree on Land Survey (Ordinance No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912) has originally acquired the relevant land, so if the land survey register was prepared and at least the group was circumstances under the former Decree on Land Survey, the title holder or his/her heir becomes the owner of the relevant land. Therefore, even if the State treated it as unregistered real estate and completed the registration as State property through the procedures under the State Property Act and subordinate statutes, the ownership is not vested in the State. The presumption of registration of preservation of ownership on the land is broken if it is proved that there is a separate person in charge of the relevant