1. As to the Plaintiff, with respect to the land size of 1,904 square meters prior to Macheon-si:

A. The defendant Republic of Korea is the Macheon District Court's Macheon Registry.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese occupation point period, the land survey book was assessed against E on March 15, 1914 in 1,936 (hereinafter “pre-divisioned land”).

B. On December 29, 1961, the land before subdivision was divided into 4,496 square meters and 1,904 square meters prior to C on December 29, 1961 (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. Defendant Republic of Korea completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant land by the District Court, Macheon District Court, Macheon Registry, No. 867, Mar. 19, 1962, and Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer from Defendant Republic of Korea as the receipt No. 9613, Mar. 19, 2013 on the ground of sale from Defendant Republic of Korea on January 21, 2013.

G, the plaintiff's father, died on April 6, 1931, and H, the plaintiff's father, succeeded to Australia.

H died on January 24, 1974, and the plaintiff, I, J, and K, who was a child, became co-inheritors.

[Reasons for Recognition] For Defendant Republic of Korea: Each entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 through 9 (including household numbers), as a whole, as to Defendant B: Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. First, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the evidence No. 3-1, No. 5-3, No. 8, and No. 9, as the assessment titleholder of the land before subdivision, as well as whether E and the Plaintiff’s lighting group G are identical to one another, the health team, the assessment titleholder, and the Plaintiff’s lighting division are identical to one another, and their place of residence and permanent domicile coincide with Macheon-si L. As to the F land divided from the land before subdivision, H, which was the Plaintiff’s attached on June 7, 1965, completed registration of preservation of ownership as one of co-owners, such as the fact that the Plaintiff’s registration of ownership was completed as one of co-owners, it is recognized that G, the Plaintiff’s lighting division, is the same as the assessment titleholder of the land before subdivision (Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion

The presumption of registration of preservation of ownership shall be broken if it is found that a person other than the holder of the registration for preservation has received the assessment of the relevant land.