The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim added by this court, shall be amended as prescribed in paragraph 2.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 1958, the Namyang-si, C previously 5062 (hereinafter “C land before division”) was restored to its original state on the part of the owner on December 10, 1958, and was divided into B B’s 2211, D’ 108, 108, 407, 533, 533, 306, 413, 104, and 104, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “BB 211 square meters”) the remainder of the land except “B 2211 square meters” shall be specified only by the lot number.

B B The former 2,211 was partitioned into 1,116 B B and 1,095 B prior to W (hereinafter “W”) on June 29, 1964, and the former 1,116 was subdivided into each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) on November 24, 1964 after the land category was changed to a river on November 24, 1964.

C. On December 1, 1964, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership as stated in Paragraph 2 of this case’s each land. D.

On the other hand, D, F, G, and H land has completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of J, K, L, and M on the ground that each of the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 30, 1960 under the name of the defendant, following the farmland distribution procedure under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) (hereinafter “farmland Reform Act”).

In addition, registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of P, Q, R, Plaintiff, S, and T, the heir of N (O, January 20, 1968) on September 24, 1970.

E. The details of the above land division and the details of the registration change are as shown in the annexed sheet.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), 13, 16, 17, and 21; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s land before subdivision, including each of the instant land, was owned by N, the father of the Plaintiff. The Defendant purchased the land in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act.

However, since then, each land of this case is determined not to be distributed as farmland and its ownership N.