1. The defendant shall receive on September 25, 1996 from the plaintiff the Macheon-si District Court Macheon-si District Court with respect to the land size of 109 square meters.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land survey division drafted during the Japanese occupation point period is written in the land survey division stating that the network D obtained 33 square meters (the administrative district was changed from October 2003 to Macheon-si C; hereinafter “instant land”) located in the same Ri (hereinafter “instant land”) on March 1, 1914.

B. The land of this case was destroyed by war on June 25, 1965, and was destroyed by the owner on March 31, 1965, and was restored to its original state without being written. On September 4, 1996, the defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership on September 25, 1996 by the Macheon District Court (Yancheon District Court No. 27909, Sept. 25, 1996) and registered as the owner as the defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as the “registration of initial ownership”). C.

The Plaintiff’s prior network D had a permanent domicile in the “Yancheon-gun E” in Gyeonggi-do, and died in around 1928 (fire 3 years), the network head of the Dong is the net F, his south is the net G (Death in 1951), and his south is the network H.

The deceased H(Death) was his spouse as wife I, K, L, M (Death, 1976), N, and the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was jointly inherited the said I and the above siblings and their properties due to the death of the deceased H.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact-finding, D, the name of the circumstance of the land in this case, and D, the Plaintiff’s preference, are identical in Korean and Chinese name, and their domicile are deemed to be identical to “Ycheon-gun C,” and according to the fact-finding results as to the O of the O of Macheon-si on December 14, 2017 by this court, it can be recognized that there is no family head of the same Dong-person, whose permanent domicile is “Ycheon-si C,” whose name is identical in Korean and Chinese name is the same as that of the family head of the same family.

Therefore, since the assessment titleholder of the land in this case and D, the Plaintiff’s fleet, can be seen as the same person, the Plaintiff’s fleet D, under the circumstances of the land in this case, acquired the ownership of the land in this case, and the Defendant’s name.