1. The Defendant shall accept on December 17, 2008, the registration of Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong District Housing Site Costs with respect to the Plaintiff’s 393 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si.

1. According to the Land Survey Book (Evidence A) of the Gyeonggi A Forest No. 119 square meters for the Gyeonggi A Forest No. 119 square meters prepared during the Japanese colonial period for recognition, the said land is indicated as being under the circumstances of D residing in Gyeonggi A, A, the A. 1.

Since then, the indication was changed to 393 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) due to the change of name, conversion of area, and land category.

The defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on December 17, 2008, such as the statement in Paragraph (1) of this Article concerning the land of this case.

The plaintiff's early husband resided in Pyeongtaek-si C, a legal domicile, and died on September 25, 1976, and the plaintiff jointly succeeded to D's property with other inheritors.

【Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in the Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the fact-finding results as to the above finding, the fact-finding results of this court’s fact-finding (the fact-finding inquiry inquiry conducted on September 18, 2014) and the overall purport of the arguments, namely, D and D, the title of the circumstances and injury to the land of this case, are the same as their names, and ② the address of the title holder D and the legal domicile of D, the Plaintiff’s assistance representative, were located in C, the same region, and ③ at the time of the preparation of the Land Investigation Division, it is deemed that D and Dong were not the human resources at the time of the preparation of the Land Investigation Division, it is reasonable to view that D and D, the title of the land of this case, were the same person.

Therefore, there is a separate assessment of the land in this case, while the defendant did not prove the acquisition by succession of the land in this case, the registration of preservation of ownership of the land in this case by the defendant is reversed and the cause is null and void.

Ultimately, as one of the successors of D, the Defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership of the instant land as to the Plaintiff seeking preservation.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion