1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant is about the plaintiff with respect to the area of 49 square meters prior to the Namyang-si in Gyeonggi-do.

1. According to the “Jari-gun Land Survey Division,” which was established pursuant to the Shipbuilding Land Survey Order, which was the Japanese occupation of the facts of recognition, it is stated that, around 2 years in 1913 (1913), E was evaluated as the owner of the approximately 151 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun, Yang-gun, Yangyang-gun, and the said Land Survey Division entered the said E’s address as the said E’s address.

The deceased F, which is the plaintiff's fleet, is "K at Yangju-si, Gyeonggi-do," and the place of birth of the plaintiff (the plaintiff of January 1, 1938) is "K at Yangju-gun, Gyeonggi-do."

The plaintiff's prior owner F died on April 9, 1960, and G succeeded to the property.

G In addition, after the death of June 17, 1981, the Plaintiff and L et al. jointly inherited the network G.

Gyeonggi Aptitude C is incorporated in order into the Hocheon-gun, 1914, into the Gyeonggi-si, 1945, into the Gyeonggi-si, 1946, and the current administrative district is the name of the two Sis (hereinafter referred to as “D” regardless of the change in the name of the administrative district).

As of December 16, 1995, the name of the administrative district as of the land stated in paragraph (2) of this Article (hereinafter “the land of this case”) is Namyang-si, and the defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the land of this case as of December 16, 1995.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the identity of the Plaintiff’s fleet and the well-known person, the identity of the Plaintiff’s fleet and the well-known person should be strictly proven. The following circumstances are acknowledged according to each of the evidence revealed earlier, based on whether F, the Plaintiff’s well-known person, at the time of the above fact-finding person’s domicile, resides in the Gyeonggi-gun E E, which is the Plaintiff’s well-known person’s domicile, and whether D, did not prove that there was no well-known person other than the Plaintiff’s well-known person F, etc.

The assessment titleholder of the land in this case and the Plaintiff’s fleet F, the name of the Plaintiff, both.