1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (1) In 1943, the Joseon General Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the so-called 2nd emergency expansion facility project plan, and 70% of the total expenses required for the construction is to be borne by the owners of the land in the said political party’s country, and the remaining 30% of the total expenses is to be borne by the owners of the land within the area of its maintenance, and purchased at least 30 times (the currency at the time of its maintenance) on the land to be the riverbed of its maintenance, and constructed a construction at a certain point at the beginning of the construction work

(2) In the case of Gyeonggi Mosung Group D

8. 15. As a part of the above plan before the Sea, the Myeon authorities decided to be the principal body and establish three maintenances within the Myeon, and purchased approximately 6,000 of the land to be the site for the maintenance of the river in E, and the 70% of the cost was at the Office’s expense 30% of the cost was purchased at 30% of the land owners within the Y-ri area of E, and used it to build E and use it for the irrigation of the Y-ri farmland.

(3) The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy was separated from Gyeonggi E, and there is no material to know the detailed timing of separation.

B. (1) The 2,187 G G in Gyeonggi-gun and the 717 H No. 717 are the land for the above A, and the above B’s repair fraternity occupied, managed, and benefiting from it. As to the above H’s land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s name. However, as to the above G’s land, I completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 29, 1975.

(2) On December 26, 1975, I sought the return of unjust enrichment by illegally occupying the said G land and the said land from 38 persons, including J, etc., who are the causes of the residents’ repair circles, as Seoul Civil Criminal Procedure District Court 75Kahap318. The said court rendered a judgment dismissing the I’s claim on December 26, 1975.

I appealed against the above judgment in Seoul High Court No. 76Na1196, and the above court on February 16, 197, sold and delivered by K prior to the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, the former owner of the G land, as the land that was completed by the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act.