beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's lawsuits against the defendant Republic of Korea for confirmation of ownership are dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's defendant.
Reasons
1. The assertion;
A. 1) Claim on the ownership and inheritance relation of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) was not registered, and the instant real estate was owned by G on September 10, 1910 on the old land cadastre. On June 3, 1913, the Plaintiff’s father, who was the Plaintiff’s father, and became the ownership of the instant H due to the registration of ownership transfer in the Non-Party H’s future. 2) The instant real estate was inherited solely by Non-Party deceased on December 7, 1946, when the Gu residents’ law was in force, and on December 7, 1946, when the Gu residents’ law was in force.
3) As the above I died on January 27, 1967, the non-party D, his lineal descendant, succeeded to the 6/7 shares of the instant real estate and the 1/7 shares of the deceased non-party D, the non-party D, the spouse of the said L, succeeded to the said L's shares on May 24, 1979. The above M succeeded to the said L's shares on November 27, 1996 by Defendant E, Defendant D, and Defendant F, the spouse of the said L's death.
5) As the above K died on May 27, 2008, Defendant C and his spouse inherited the said K’s shares. 6) Ultimately, as to the instant real estate, Defendant C owned 168/490 shares, Defendant C’s 252/490 shares, Defendant D’s 45/490 shares, Defendant E owned 15/490 shares, Defendant E owned 10/490 shares, and Defendant F owned 10/490 shares.
B. In around the 1990s, the Plaintiff owned and cultivated approximately KRW 90, approximately 560, approximately 93, and approximately 93,000 of the above PP land, which is the land adjacent to the instant real estate. However, around April 1993, the Plaintiff agreed that the instant land was one of the property inherited from Na and L, and between L was agreed to be the part of the property inherited from Na and L.
However, it seems that the real estate of this case is living and simple thought, and even though it does not have a different test, it is against the plaintiff who cultivates the above N-land.