1. The defendant on October 28, 1994, as to the real estate stated in the attached list in the plaintiff's attached list, the Jung-gu District Court, Yangyang-ju Registry.

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Land Survey Book, on November 20, 1913, B entered as the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the following grounds: (a) on November 20, 1913, the real estate indicated in the attached list (i.e., Yang-gun C was changed to “Seoul-si D” due to a change of name; hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on the instant real estate by the District Court of Jung-gu, Namyang District Court No. 51429, Oct. 28, 1994.

C. The Plaintiff is one of the deceased’s successors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In full view of the evidence mentioned above and the result of each fact-finding on D Eup heads of this court and the following circumstances revealed by the above facts-finding, it is reasonable to view that the circumstances of the real estate of this case and the Plaintiff’s fleet B are the same person. A) When entering the land research division into the land research division, the land research division provides that “the address shall be omitted when the owner’s address and the location of the land are identical.”

B) The land survey division of “Y” in Yang-gun, the address of B, the assessment title, is vacant. According to the above survey provision, B appears to have been residing in “Y” at the time of the occurrence of the situation. C) The Plaintiff’s prior domicile is “F in Yang-gun, Gyeonggi-do,” and there is no certified copy of the Plaintiff’s prior domicile except for the Plaintiff’s removal of the Plaintiff’s prior domicile, B in Nam-si, the Australia did not have a certified copy of the family register.

2. According to the above facts, the real estate in this case is the land in which the plaintiff's prior owner B was assessed on 1913, and the above circumstances are presumed to have become final and conclusive unless there is any counter-proof, such as that the above circumstances have been changed by the adjudication. Thus, the real estate in this case was acquired at the original time.

The presumption of registration of preservation of ownership is found to have been assessed by a person other than the title holder of the preservation registration.