1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 6, 1927 (the name registered in the name of Japan in the name of Japan on June 6, 1927, when the Japanese human life data collection, which was the Japanese coloned in Japan during the Japanese colonial rule period), with respect to the land in this case, the land in this case was completed on October 18, 1983.

B. The instant land was combined with B 1,207 square meters owned by E on March 9, 2005.

After the annexation, the area of the land B was 1,756 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land after the annexation”), and the part of the land, among the land after the annexation, 59 square meters in line with the indication of the attached drawing, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1, connected each point of the land after the annexation, falls under the part of the land in question.

C. After the annexation, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the defendant's future on the grounds of "trade on March 24, 2005" on March 28, 2005.

hereinafter referred to as "transfer registration of ownership of this case"

(ii) [based on recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, and 7 (each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings, including each number);

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the relevant legal principles, Article 5 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, and Articles 4, 34, and 40 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, Japan, etc. since August 9, 1945, the property existing in the jurisdiction of the United States of America was owned by the Government, Japan, etc. from September 25, 1945, and was transferred to the Republic of Korea as of September 11, 1948, and the possessor was merely in the position of a simple custodian, and thus, is null and void even if there was no right to dispose of the property devolving to the State.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da36778 delivered on June 9, 2000, etc.). B.

As to the instant case, the following circumstances can be revealed from the facts acknowledged earlier.