1. The defendant shall make the plaintiff the Dong Do Government District Court's Dong Ducheon-si B cemetery No. 383 square meters in relation to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 1913, the Plaintiff’s prior net C was found to have been under the Land Investigation Order with 116 square meters (383 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) in Yangju-gun, Yangju-gun, Gyeonggi-do.

The Gyeonggi-do Yang-gun E, where the land of this case is located, was changed to the Gyeonggi-do Dong-si F.

B. After August 5, 1996, the Defendant completed the registration procedure for the preservation of ownership on the land of this case as the 8650 square meters of the Dongducheon-si B cemetery in Gyeonggi-do as the 8650 square meters registry office received.

(hereinafter referred to as the “registration of initial ownership”). C.

The deceased on June 8, 1925, G, the South-North of C, was deceased on November 24, 1926, and G, the South-North of G, the South-North of H died on October 2, 1958, prior to the enforcement of the former Civil Act, and the Plaintiff, the South-North of H inherited the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, as the heir of the deceased C, is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of registration of cancellation of registration of ownership preservation of this case completed in the future of the defendant as to the land of this case as the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that I, who is the title holder of the land investigation injury, and I and I, the plaintiff's preference C cannot be determined as the same person, and thus, they cannot respond to the plaintiff's request. However, considering the results of fact-finding in each of the Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, I and C, who is the plaintiff's preference, are the same one, and the plaintiff's preference C, who was the title holder of the land investigation injury, had the land of this case, and the plaintiff's preference C, the legal domicile of both states E, and both states E, who had no other person with the plaintiff's preference, at the time of the enforcement of the Land Investigation Decree. Thus, I and the plaintiff's preference C, who is the title holder of the land investigation injury, are the same and the defendant's preference C, which is the same person, shall be confirmed sufficiently.