1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) In the land survey division (Evidence A No. 1) concerning Gyeonggi-gun C Ri (the name of the administrative district is referred to as "Cri-gun") prepared during the Japanese occupation period (the name of the administrative district is referred to as "Cri-gun"), D 1914 (the third year)

3. 10. E 1,342 square meters (hereinafter “instant assessment land”) are written as being subject to assessment.

B. The assessment land of the instant case was restored to cadastral assessment on March 31, 1965, and was divided into F. F. 57 No. 57, B. 141, G 543, and H 601.

C. Of them, the land category B (hereinafter “instant land”) was changed to a road on September 15, 1968, and the area was converted to a 466m2 on September 1, 197, and registered on September 1, 1971. The registration of preservation of ownership of claims in the Defendant’s name was completed on August 20, 204, and is currently included in the national highway I’s road zone.

On November 18, 193, J, the Plaintiff’s fleet, died on November 18, 193, and succeeded to the property of J independently as Australia, and on June 5, 1950, K succeeded to the property of K solely as Australia.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The following facts are revealed in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5-1 of the evidence Nos. 5-1 by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings. In other words, the names of Eul and the plaintiff J on the land of this case correspond to "M"; ② The address column of the land survey division concerning the land of this case is a blank space; ② The address column of the land survey division is deemed to be in accordance with the point of preparation at the time of preparation of the land survey division, which means that the land location and the owner’s domicile are identical, the address column of the land survey division is a disturbance. ③ The Plaintiff’s permanent domicile is N in the vicinity of the land of this case.