1. The defendant shall receive on May 1, 1996 from the plaintiff the Suwon District Court in relation to the size of 132 square meters prior to B in Sungsung-si.

1. The facts under the basis of the facts may be found, either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), together with the whole purport of the pleadings.

According to the Land Survey Book prepared in the Japanese colonial era, C, which is located in the same Ri as of May 28, 1911, is indicated as being under the circumstances of 40 square meters (22 square meters prior to the Silsung-si, such as the present lot number, and the next land) in Gyeonggi-do.

B. After the death of C, C succeeded to D, his/her own property, and D, on January 3, 1987, succeeded to the property of E, children, F, Plaintiff, G, H, and I, the wife of E, F, H, H, and I.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation (hereinafter “registration of ownership preservation”) as to the land of this case by the Suwon District Court Seosung District Court No. 23729, May 1, 1996.

2. In the absence of counter-proofs such as changes in the contents of an adjudication, the person registered as an owner in the land investigation register for the cause of the claim shall be presumed to have been determined as the owner of the land, unless there is any counter-proof that the circumstances have been changed by the adjudication, and the presumption of preservation of ownership shall be broken if it is found that a person other than

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da4654, 46661 delivered on May 23, 197, etc.). In full view of the above basic facts and the statement of evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the J of the J of this case, C, who is a circumstance title of the land of this case, is identical to C, the Plaintiff’s prior owner of the land of this case, and the land of this case was under the circumstances of C, which is the Plaintiff’s prior owner of the land of this case, and the address of C, who is the owner of the land of this case, was indicated as K. However, the above evidence revealed to the effect that C, the Plaintiff’s prior owner of the land of this case, and C, the real name of the land of this case, are not the same person.