1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

The defendant is true in relation to the plaintiff's 1,739 square meters of Gyeonggi-gun B river.

1. The basic facts of the claim ① The non-party C (C; hereinafter referred to as the "Government C") was assessed on March 10, 1912 before the Gyeonggi-gun B, Gyeonggi-do, the land of this case, but the registration of preservation of ownership was not completed. ② The land of this case was used as the dry field of the river, but the water flow was changed from the time to the time due to the change of the water delivery period of the river due to the typhoon immediately after the Korean War. Accordingly, the land category was changed from July 15, 1958 to the river before the beginning; ③ The land of this case was changed from the former River Act to the river before the amendment by Act No. 5893, Feb. 8, 1999.

c. The term “former River Act” is only referred to as “former River Act.”

(E)The fact that it is the applicable river under the current River Act and the river site E, a local second-class river under the current River Act (the Gyeonggi-do branch office, the management agency of E, seems to have been actually occupied from July 15, 1958, the date of change of the land category.

(4) On January 7, 1991, the defendant reported the right to the land of this case by July 8, 1991, and publicly notified the purport that "the defendant shall acquire the ownership of the land of this case without any report until then." The defendant, who is not subject to the report of the right to the land of this case, completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the land of this case on July 30, 1996 pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 5453 of Dec. 13, 1997), ④ The plaintiff's father died on March 9, 195, and the plaintiff, as his father, succeeded to the whole property of this case, and there is no dispute between the parties, or there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's request for registration of preservation of ownership was seriously interfered with the plaintiff's statement on the land of this case and the fact that the plaintiff, a sole heir, as his father, succeeded to the plaintiff's whole property of this case, and there is no evidence to the purport of the plaintiff.