1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In the Land Survey Book of the Japanese Occupation Period, it is written that “D” was an assessment in relation to the land Survey Book of the Japanese Occupation Period of Gyeonggi-do 177 square meters and C 117 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant assessment land”).

(b) Attached Form (i) which was divided into 177 square meters before brigade-gun, Gyeonggi-do and has undergone a conversion of the area, a conversion of land category, etc.;

1. The inventory;

1. Attached Form concerning the land indicated (hereinafter referred to as the “land of this case”);

2. The list;

1. Attached Form, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant has been made as stated, and which has undergone the conversion into a unit of area of 117 square meters in the same Ri;

1. The inventory;

2. As to the land indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as the land in this case, and the land in this case collectively referred to as the land in this case), the attached Form is attached.

2. The list;

2. The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was made as stated.

B. On September 11, 1957, the land cadastre of the instant case was indicated to be the owner of the instant land, and the ownership of the Defendant was transferred on September 11, 1950, when the land cadastre of the instant case was the owner of the instant land.

Consolidatedly, the present status of the land in this case is used by E/F as a housing site or farmland according to each loan agreement between the defendant and the defendant.

C. The Plaintiff’s fleet G died on May 24, 1964 and became co-inheritors, and H, I, and J. H died on September 5, 1967 and became co-inheritors and the Plaintiff, K, L, M, N,O, P, and P were co-inheritors.

[Ground of recognition] Each description or image of Gap evidence 1, 4, 6, Gap evidence 2, and 3 evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 2, and 3, respectively.

2. The assessment of the land of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant case reveals that D is the same person as G who is the Plaintiff’s prior owner, and that there is a separate person in charge of the assessment of the land, registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name relating to the instant land should be cancelled due to the lack of presumption of preservation of ownership.

As one of the co-inheritors with respect to the instant land, the Plaintiff is against the Defendant by preserving the jointly owned property.