1. The defendant shall use the plaintiff on the Gyeonggi-gu District Court's Yangyang-gun 397 square meters and shall use the plaintiff as the defendant's office of registration in Yangyang-gu District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese Occupation Period, D, who had been residing in Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun C, was assessed on February 9, 1912, Gyeonggi-gun E, Gyeonggi-do, 744 square meters (hereinafter “instant assessment land”).

B. On December 30, 1957, the land of this case was divided from the land of this case on the Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, 397 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”). The name of the administrative district was changed to the Yangyang-gun, 1963 where the land of this case was located.

C. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation (hereinafter “registration of ownership preservation”) of the instant land in the Suwon District Court Yangyang Registry No. 2179, February 2, 1996.

F, the Plaintiff’s permanent domicile is Gyeonggi-gu G, and the deceased on May 24, 194, thereby becoming the sole heir, H was the deceased on June 3, 1954 and his deceased on June 3, 1954 and became the sole heir, and I was the deceased on October 5, 1971 and became the sole heir, and the J was the deceased on July 7, 197 and became one of the co-inheritors.

E. On February 18, 1914, the Gyeonggi-si, which is the address and supplementary domicile of the land under the assessment of the instant assessment land, was integrated into the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, which was the address and supplementary domicile of the land, and the name of the said L pages was changed into M of 1938, and eventually, it is a village such as the legal domicile of the Plaintiff’s high tide F.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 7 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts and evidence, at the time of the circumstances of this case, D, the title holder of the assessment of the assessment land of this case, and the indication of the Plaintiff’s permanent domicile and the indication of the Plaintiff’s name, at the time of the circumstances of this case, are identical. In addition, there is no evidence to deem that D and Dong name were located at the above address at the time of the circumstances, the assessment title of the assessment land of this case and the Plaintiff’s senior lighting F.