1. The defendant shall list the plaintiff as to each of the land indicated in the annexed list "land subject to dispute".

1. Basic facts

A. The “land under the circumstances at the time of the land investigation” listed in the separate sheet was assessed against C residing in the Gyeonggi-gun Group B around 1912, each of the land indicated in the “land under the circumstances at the time of the investigation” (hereinafter “each of the instant circumstances”).

B. Each of the circumstances in the instant case became each land indicated in the column for “subdivided Land” as indicated in the separate sheet through division of land, conversion of the area, change of the name of the administrative district, change of land category, etc. (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

C. The Defendant completed each registration of preservation of ownership, such as the entry in the “Contents of the registration of preservation of ownership” in the separate sheet as to each of the instant land.

On the other hand, the legal domicile of D, the plaintiff's attached, is Gyeonggi-gun E, and F, the head of South Korea, died on September 1, 1941, inherited his property as the family heir.

F On October 8, 1952, G, the wife, succeeded to its property as the family heir.

G A. On November 7, 1957, the family head of family was severedd due to the lack of family heir, and there was the plaintiff and I, who were the same birth of F in the same family register of F at the time.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 14, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7-1 through 18, Gap evidence 8-1 through 7, Gap evidence 9-1 through 8, Gap evidence 10-1 through 3, the fact inquiry results, the whole purport of pleadings, and the whole purport of pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As seen earlier, as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the assessment titleholder of each of the circumstances in this case and the Plaintiff’s reference D are the same person, the assessment titleholder of each of the circumstances in this case and the Plaintiff’s referenced D are equally identical to each other. The residence and permanent domicile of each of the circumstances in this case coincide with J, and there are no specific circumstances to deem that the Plaintiff’s reference and the Dong name were residing at the time of the above circumstances in J, the assessment titleholder in each of the circumstances in this case and D, the Plaintiff’s reference, are the same.