1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. On November 21, 1964, registration of ownership was completed in the name of TUV (each 1/3 shares) in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of General Farmland (No. 1657), with respect to the land prior to K innju-si (hereinafter “the land prior to the instant subdivision”).

(2) On June 29, 1972, with respect to the 1/3 portion in V’s name, the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant W was completed on the grounds of sale and purchase.

(3) On March 9, 2016, the instant land prior to the instant subdivision was subdivided into the area of 423 square meters prior to K, 386 square meters prior to L prior to leisure, 378 square meters prior to leisure, 378 square meters prior to leisure, 323 square meters prior to leisure, 523 square meters prior to leisure, 354 square meters prior to leisure, 404 square meters prior to leisure, and 535 square meters prior to leisure, each of which was subdivided into the area of the instant land prior to the instant subdivision.

(4) After that, each registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendants, such as the purport of the claim as to the eight parcels written above.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 2, Eul 1, and 2; the result of each fact-finding on the branch court of Suwon District Court's branch court's branch court's fact-finding, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On May 15, 1912, regarding the land before the instant partition, the cause of the instant claim was determined in the Plaintiff’s name X, the Plaintiff’s increased portion of the land, and without any cause on November 21, 1964, the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of TUV with respect to each of 1/3 shares under the name of TUV. The said land was subdivided on March 9, 2016, and the registration of ownership transfer was made to the Defendants regarding the divided land as stated in the purport of the claim.

However, if the title holder of the preservation registration is presumed to be the owner, but it is revealed that there is another person in charge of the assessment of the relevant land, the presumption power is broken, so the registration is invalid as long as the title holder fails to specifically prove the fact of acquisition by succession, unless he/she proves the fact of acquisition by succession. Since the title holder of the land before the division of this case is the Plaintiff’s certificate X, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants is null and void, the Defendants are identical to the purport of the claim based on the Plaintiff’