beta
Text
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 25, 1911, H was under the circumstances of 309 square meters (1,021 square meters, hereinafter “instant land”) before G in Suwon-gun, Gyeonggiwon-gun.
H The deceased on May 29, 1940, and I succeeded to the land of this case by his children, and I also died on October 13, 1991, and L, M, N,O, P, and P were succeeded to the land of this case, respectively.
B. Gyeonggi Suwon-gun Q changed its administrative district name to “R” on 1936. 1936. 1949. 1963. 1963. 198. 198. 2. 3.
C. The public book on the instant land was destroyed at the time of the 625 War, and was later restored to “Seoul-do Suwon-gu G, Suwon-si, Suwon-do,” and the land category was changed on May 20, 1958.
Around October 1937, the Defendant opened a reservoir with U reservoir in the land of this case and completed the construction of U reservoir on December 11, 1940. On April 27, 1991, the Defendant issued a public notice of non-owned real estate, and subsequently did not object to the public inspection by interested parties, and the Defendant was designated as a management agency under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance and Economy pursuant to the provisions of Articles 16 and 19 of the State Property Act, and occupied and managed the land of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 10 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. A person who is registered in the Land Survey Board under the former Land Survey Decree on the grounds of a claim as a landowner shall be presumed to have been assessed as a landowner and the circumstance shall be determined unless there is any counter-proof that the content of the situation has been changed by the adjudication.
(See Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1773 delivered on June 10, 1986, etc.). As seen earlier, the land in this case was originally owned by the Plaintiffs under the circumstances of the network H, which is the father of the Plaintiffs, and barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiffs are the owners of one-eight shares of each of the land in this case.