1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a clan grouped of CC 21 years of age D, which consists of descendants.

B. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese Occupation Period, the land survey book stating that F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “F, etc.”) was under the circumstance of F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “F, etc.”), and the said land was divided from the said land prior to the said division into G, G, H, and I (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. Official cadastral records, etc. regarding the above land before the division were entirely destroyed on March 20, 1953 due to the disaster on June 25, 1953, and the cadastral records were restored to 1,428, 62, and L road 15.

On February 19, 2000, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation (hereinafter “registration of ownership preservation”) on the land of this case by the Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, port of registry No. 14049.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1-4, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-5-1, 5-4, and the fact inquiry results against the head of Young-si Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the judgment

A. The land before the plaintiff's assertion was originally owned by the plaintiff, and was in the name of title trust to the above F, etc., which is the plaintiff's clan, and since the defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on the land of this case divided from the above land before the division, the above registration of ownership preservation in the defendant's name is null and void.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a title truster of the instant land, is obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership preservation in the instant case against the Plaintiff who subrogated by F, etc.’s inheritors, the

B. First, whether the land prior to the division was title trust or not, the land prior to the division was originally owned by the Plaintiff.

We examine whether this was title trust to the above F et al., according to each of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 to 6, and Gap evidence No. 3-1 to 4.