1. The defendant on July 29, 1996, with respect to the 393 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun B, Gyeonggi-do, the District Court of Jung-gu District on the plaintiff's family registry office.

1. Basic facts

A. A. On April 1, 1914, the Ministry of Land Survey and Inspection of Gyeonggi-gun C (at present, referred to as “Gamyeong-gun D” in the administrative district) written by the General Government of the Joseon-gun, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport entered the “E” as the owner of Gyeonggi-gun B large 119 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and the address is a disturbance.

B. On July 29, 1996, registration of ownership preservation was completed on the land of this case in the future of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff, etc. asserted that the land of this case was the land previously inherited from Cho Jae-, and sought the cancellation of registration of ownership preservation based on ownership as the act of preserving ownership.

As to this, the defendant did not prove that the plaintiff's good faith and the well-known person are the same person.

B. 1) Determination 1) Unless there is any counter-proof that the owner registered in the Land Survey Division or the Forest Survey Division of E acquires the ownership of the land or in the Forest Survey Division of E is presumed to have become final and conclusive, unless there is any counter-proof that the situation has been changed by the adjudication, etc., and the person who received the situation of the land acquires the land smoothly. As such, the party asserting that he acquired the ownership on the ground of circumstance does not need to prove the developments leading up to the acquisition of the land before the situation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da13686, Sept. 8, 1998). The fact that E was registered in the Land Survey Division as the owner of the land of this case, as seen earlier, is presumed to have acquired the ownership of the land of this case. 2) In full view of the overall purport of the arguments as to whether the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case, etc., and the fact that the Plaintiff died on April 2, 1939 and died on July 1, 197.