1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. As to the land listed in Attachment List No. 1, the District Court of Sucheon District Court, Macheon Registry, 196.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land survey book prepared during the Japanese occupation period includes B’s address located prior to the partition of each land listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the attached Table Nos. 1 and (2) (hereinafter “instant 1 and 2”) in the land survey book in the Japanese occupation period, and it is indicated that B was under the circumstance of B having a domicile prior to the partition of each land listed in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the attached Table Nos. 3 and (4) (hereinafter “instant 3 and 4”).

B. Each registration of preservation of ownership in each of the instant land stated in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant cases”) was made with respect to each of the instant land in the name of the Defendant.

C. The legal domicile of the Plaintiff’s prior to the Plaintiff’s filing of a certified copy of D’s removal (the removal of the register from the register of the head of South Korea) is “F of Gyeonggi-do Macheon-gun

Macheon-gun G was H in 1912, which was incorporated into Lancheon-gun in 1914, and was incorporated into Gancheon-si on October 19, 2003.

The Gincheon-si Lincheon-do replyed to the effect that there is no D in this paper the Gincheon-gun of Gyeonggi-do Lincheon-do Lincheon-si Lin-si Lin.

E. D A deceased on April 5, 193 and succeeded to Australia by the head of South and North Korea. On November 15, 1967, E deceased on November 15, 1967, the spouse M, N,O jointly inherited, and N died on February 2, 1995, and the spouse P, Q, R, S, T, A, U, and V jointly inherited.

[Evidence Evidence] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1-12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s fleet D received assessment of each of the instant land, and each of the instant registration of ownership in the name of the Defendant is null and void.

Since the defendant's possession of each land of this case cannot be recognized and the defendant failed to submit the data on the acquisition of the land of this case 2, the presumption of possession with autonomy is reversed and there is negligence in the commencement of possession

B. The Plaintiff’s fleet D and the land survey division of each of the instant lands cannot be deemed as the same person.

The defendant has occupied each of the lands of this case for 20 years and acquired prescription and acquisition by prescription of registry.