1. The defendant is attached to the plaintiff and the non-party entered in the attached inheritance share list of the attached Form, among the area of 916 square meters in Gwangju-si.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in the judgment on the cause of the claim by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 11.

According to the Land Survey Book drawn up in the Japanese Occupation Period, it is written that the Plaintiff’s prior land owner D was informed of the situation regarding the 1,342 square meters (4,436 square meters, hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).

B. The land prior to the instant partition was partitioned on November 15, 1957, and was divided into 634 square meters (2,096 square meters), B 277 square meters (27 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) and F 431 square meters (1,424 square meters).

C. The Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land by filing a public announcement of non-resident-owned real estate under Article 8 of the State Property Act (Seoul High Military Notice G on July 3, 1993) with the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch Office of Gwangju Branch on September 18, 1996.

The Plaintiff’s prior net D died on February 18, 1967. As to the instant land, the Plaintiff (child) died, Nonparty A, H, I, J, and K (hereinafter “foreign passenger”) jointly succeeded to D’s property in proportion to each of the shares indicated in the separate inheritance share list.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The title holder of land under the former Decree on Land Survey (Ordinance No. 23, Aug. 13, 1912, 1912) is to acquire the pertinent land at the time, and if at least the land survey division was established and circumstances were given to the Gun, he/she becomes the title holder or his/her heir. Therefore, even if the State treated it as unregistered real estate and completed registration as State property through the procedures prescribed in the State Property Act and subordinate statutes, even if the State’s ownership is not vested in the State. Meanwhile, the presumption of ownership preservation on the land does not change if it is proved that there is another person under the circumstances of the land, and the registration is null and void, unless the title holder proves the fact of succession.

Supreme Court Decision 200