1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7, and 10 may be admitted by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

1) On July 6, 1912, K changed the name of the administrative district on September 23, 2013, the name of the state of land and the name of the administrative district on September 23, 2013, G was changed to “Iriri-si, Gyeonggi-do.” Before J 738 (hereinafter “instant land before the instant division”).

(2) The land survey division in relation to the instant land prior to the instant partition is indicated as being subject to the assessment of the Ganju-gun in Gyeonggi-do’s W 422 square meters and J 738 square meters, and the address of K is not indicated. (2) After the division of the land of Gyeonggi-do from 738 square meters in the Jinju-gun in Seoul-gun in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant completed the registration of the preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name as to the instant land on December 20, 1983.

B. Inheritance 1) The Plaintiff’s preemptive copy of K is written in the name of Jincheon-gun M. 2) The Plaintiff’s preemptive title of K was written in the name of O, R, and S as his child, and the O was a child and the Plaintiff and the first instance court co-Plaintiff B, C, D, and net T (Death on July 3, 2008).

on January 16, 1927, K died from the N of Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, and O, South-Nam, was the deceased on October 7, 1965, and thereafter, the plaintiff and the joint plaintiff B of the first instance trial were the co-inheritors of the deceased on October 7, 1965, and the plaintiff's share of inheritance is 1/5.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the land before the instant partition was assessed against the Plaintiff’s fleet. As such, the Plaintiff, the heir of the network K, is the real owner of 1/5 shares out of the instant land divided from the land before the instant partition, and instead, seeking cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant, which is null and void of the cause, instead of seeking cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the restoration of the real

(b).