1. The defendant shall support the plaintiffs with respect to the real estate stated in paragraph 2 of the attached list to the Jung-gu District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. As the network I died on February 11, 1979, the Plaintiffs and J, K, L, and M were the successors.

B. Each land research division on N andO land in the P, each of which is written by the I, the address of which is “P”, respectively.

C. Each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant list No. 1”) was subdivided from the N and O land at the time of the strike. The Defendant completed each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant list No. 2”) which was completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter referred to as the “registration No. 1” and the “registration No. 2” of the instant list) that was completed on April 17, 1962 by the Loyang Branch Branch District Court No. 1311, 191, which was received on April 17, 196 with respect to the instant land No. 2, which was completed on June 18, 196 by the Suyang Branch Branch District Court of Suyang Branch Branch Branch District Court of the Mayang Branch Branch Court of the 197, which was completed on June 18, 19

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the land No. 1 and the land No. 2 were assessed against the Plaintiff’s prior owner, and the Plaintiffs are co-ownership owners of each of the above land.

The defendant has completed each preservation registration as to each of the above lands without permission.

Therefore, the plaintiffs seek the cancellation of the registration of the first and second preservation registration of the case as the act of preserving jointly-owned property.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) In light of the fact that each divisional lot protocol prepared at the time of farmland reform with respect to the land Nos. 1 and 2 is written with the name of a third party, not the network I, the network I appears to have sold the land to the third party after the assessment of each of the above land. 2) The land Nos. 1 and 2 were used as a road for not less than 20 years, which is the land occupied by the Defendant.

C. The reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim is as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 and the fact-finding as to Qu Eup of this court.