beta
Text
1. The defendant is based on each real estate stated in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, as stated in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 1, 1914, the land research division for Gyeonggi Macheon-gun B, which was drafted during the Japanese occupation period, stated that C was under the circumstances of approximately 263 square meters (hereinafter “1-sale land”) and approximately 533 square meters (hereinafter “2-sale land”) before Gyeonggi Macheon-gun E (hereinafter “1-sale land”).
B. On March 31, 1965, the land of the first assessment was cadastrally restored to the area of 869 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-do, Macheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and the land of the second assessment was cadastrally restored to the area of 1,762 square meters prior to the same day on the same day. The Defendant completed the registration of the preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “each of the registration of each of the instant preservation registrations”) as of the area of 869 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-do and the area of 1,762 square meters prior to the same day.
C. Since then, on October 19, 2003, the size of 869 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do was changed on October 19, 2003, and the name of the administrative district was 869 square meters prior to Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, and each land listed in the attached Table 1 through two divisions on September 9, 2004 and July 7, 2005, and the land listed in paragraph (4) of the attached Table was changed on October 19, 203 by changing the name of the administrative district.
(hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant lands" in attached Tables 1 through 4).
On the other hand, after the Plaintiff’s death on June 28, 1950, G, South Korea, as the family head and the property inheritance. G, upon his death on February 6, 1991, should jointly succeed to his property, but H and I were missing on December 31, 1955 and succeeded to G’s property at 1/2 ratio due to their disappearance on January 3, 1992. K, which is H’s children, and the Plaintiff inherited the property at 1/4 ratio of shares, and the Plaintiff inherited the property at 1/4 ratio of shares (On the other hand, I inherited F’s property in succession, J, and the Plaintiff divided the inherited property into each of the instant lands, etc. on July 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6.