1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1.The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 19 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) by reference to the whole purport of the pleadings. (a)

Gyeonggi-do Seocheon-gun C 2,025 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”) was the land under circumstances on March 5, 1914, and was changed to real estate B 4,595 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”), including land division and land category change.

B. The Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on the instant real estate as the receipt No. 1447, Dec. 31, 1959, by the District Court Macheon District Court Macheon Branch Office.

C. On March 23, 1977, the Plaintiff’s prior owner, died, and succeeded to E’s property.

2. At the time when farmland distribution was implemented in accordance with the former Farmland Reform Act, the owner of the land before subdivision was the Plaintiff’s fleet E. Since the real estate of this case was determined not to be distributed thereafter, the ownership of the real estate of this case shall be deemed to have been returned to E, the original owner.

Therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership preservation on the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, who is the heir of the network E.

3. In order to seek cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in another person’s name, which was completed in relation to the real property as part of the exercise of the right to claim exclusion of interference based on the ownership of the given real property, the right to claim cancellation should be actively asserted and proved. If such right is not recognized, the registration of preservation of ownership in another person’s name may not be accepted even if such right is invalid.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da50044 Decided September 28, 2005, etc.). First, according to the health stand and the evidence revealed earlier, whether the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiffs’ prior to the ownership of the network E.