1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts following the facts are either a dispute between the parties, or a dispute between Gap and Eul (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 5 may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings. A.

Busan Northern-gu B-dong (hereinafter “B-dong”) was divided into D cemetery on November 16, 1932 (hereinafter “B-dong”). A part of it was divided into D-dong’s cemetery on November 16, 1932, and the size was reduced to 183 square meters on August 4, 1984, E-road 4 square meters on August 14, 2004, and F-road 137 square meters on August 14, 2003.

B. With respect to land before subdivision, the circumstance was made in the name of H with his domicile in G on June 15, 1912 and is registered on the old land cadastre.

C. After that, on January 27, 1975, the registration of ownership preservation was made in the name of the above H. On the ground that the Defendant, while accepting the instant land for I Project, was unable to identify the address of H, who is the owner of the instant land, on May 15, 2008, on the ground that he was unable to identify the address of H, while accepting the instant land for I Project, he deposited KRW 140,086,50 for compensation as Busan District Court No. 2865 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) with no indication of the address, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 23, 2008.

The plaintiff's pre-appellant J died on January 19, 1935, and he became his heir as Australia.

K deceased on March 31, 1957 and became a heir as a family head of L who is his own child.

L A. On February 13, 1966, the Plaintiff, N,O, and P, who were his wife M and children, were successors. On February 13, 1966, their inheritors entered into an inherited property division consultation with the purport that all the claims for the withdrawal of the instant deposit will vest in the Plaintiff.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion (1) H, who is the title of the assessment of the Plaintiff’s land, is the same as J. As such, the instant land was owned by J. Accordingly, the instant land was owned.