1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C was assessed at KRW 1,928,00 (hereinafter “instant assessment land”) during the Japanese colonial era.

B. On December 14, 1957, the defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on the land of this case.

C. On December 29, 1961, the instant assessment land was divided into 1,033 square meters before E and 895 square meters before F (2,95 square meters after conversion of area into area units; hereinafter the instant land at 895 square meters before F. hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

Accordingly, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was also transferred to the land of this case.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s fleet C died on September 8, 1927 and succeeded to the property solely by Yongnam G. On March 28, 1954, when G died on March 28, 1954, G succeeded to the property solely by the head of G H, and on August 23, 1985, H died on August 23, 1985, as co-inheritors, I, the Plaintiff, J, K, K, L, and M inherited the instant land solely by the Plaintiff, around 2014.

(H’s children died without any child on January 29, 1963, before inheritance begins, and H’s other childO died without any spouse or child on February 22, 2010. In light of the purport of the agreement on division of inherited property, the O’s share of inherited property on the instant land inherited fromO is deemed to be included in the subject of consultation). 【Ground for recognition” There is no dispute, “A’s certificate, and evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 24, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the original acquisition of the instant land under the circumstances of C, the Plaintiff’s fleet, and the Plaintiff’s sole inheritance of the said land as C’s capital loss. As such, the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant is invalid.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the land to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant land, based on the restoration of the authentic title.

B. The defendant's arguments are as follows: C and the plaintiff's preference, the assessment title of the land of this case.