1. It is confirmed that the previous 101m20,000 square meters was owned by the Plaintiff at the time of Jin-si.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8, 10, and 11.

① On November 1, 1960, the area conversion registration on May 1, 197 and the cadastral resurvey, etc. on June 24, 2015 (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land was at least B, 1017.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), which had been at the present time due to the land conversion registration on May 1, 197 and the cadastral resurvey, etc. on June 24, 2015.

② The land before the instant partition was registered as D on March 15, 1912, and the address was not indicated in the address column.

③ On the other hand, the Plaintiff, the father-in-child, was Firreged, that his permanent domicile was the Republic of west-gun. On November 28, 1939, the Plaintiff died at the permanent domicile of this case, and on November 28, 1939, H, the South-in-child, became the inheritor of Australia, and thereafter, H died on June 20, 1954, and I, the father-in-child, became the inheritor of Australia.

④ On January 27, 200, I died and became co-inheritors, who are their children. On January 27, 200, I agreed on the division of inherited property with the content that the land in this case was owned by the Plaintiff on December 22, 2015.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s main defense of this case asserted that D, the land cadastre of this case before the division, and E, the Plaintiff, who is the title holder of the land cadastre, are the same person, and that the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, seeking confirmation of ownership of the land in this case against the Defendant, who is the final heir of D, the title holder of the land in this case, is unlawful for the following reasons.

① According to the former Land Survey Order and the former Land Survey Order, which was enforced at the time of the situation of the land before the division, D, which was assessed before the division, can be seen as having a domicile in the “Sil Jin-si N,” and thus, the land of this case is located in the “Sil-si N.”