1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. D was assessed on May 18, 1913, 200, 754 square meters, which had been residing in the army of the army of the army of the army of the Republic of Korea.

B. The above land became 2,493 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Pakistan-si through the change of the name of the administrative district and the conversion of the area into a unit.

C. The cadastral record on the instant land was destroyed, and restored on February 28, 1980, and the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on the said land on October 13, 1995.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that this case’s land was proved by D was reversed, and the presumption of ownership preservation under the Defendant’s name was reversed, and the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership preservation to J, F, K, and L (hereinafter “F, etc.”) who is the heir of D.

However, from June 1941 to March 3, 1970, the Plaintiff’s father E, the father of the Plaintiff, has occupied the land in this case as farmland thereafter.

However, even if not, the plaintiff moved into M& villages in around 1980 and began to cultivate the land of this case.

Therefore, E acquired the instant land by prescription around June 30, 1961, or the Plaintiff acquired the said land by prescription around December 31, 200.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against F, etc. with respect to the instant land is the preserved right, and seek the cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation with respect to the said land by subrogation of F, etc.

3. Determination as to the existence of the preserved claim

A. In the obligee’s subrogation lawsuit, where the obligee’s right to the obligor to be preserved by subrogation is not acknowledged, the obligee is not entitled to exercise the obligee’s right to the third obligor by himself/herself and the obligee’s right to the third obligor, and such subrogation lawsuit is unlawful

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da14339 delivered on June 24, 1994). B.

The plaintiff's land in this case is examined as follows.