1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the facts acknowledged prior to the ownership of each of the lands of this case and the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 6-8 and Gap evidence No. 12, the existence of the right to claim compensation for losses shall be limited to D (hereinafter “D, the circumstance of each of the lands of this case”).

AB, at the time of the situation, was integrated with another Dong on April 1, 1914 in accordance with the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice AC of April 1, 1914, and came to be a "Saro-gu C". On June 10, 1943, the fact that it was entered into a "Saro-gu C" as a "Saro-gu" in the Joseon General Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs on June 10, 1943, and that D was entered into the land cadastre at the time of September 12, 1912. The fact that the "Sacheon-Gun Land Survey Division", prepared in 1915, was entered as the situation of the said land B, and that the above V was entered as a "SAE" on March 23, 1918.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the same person is the same person in light of the following: D and Plaintiff’s fleet D are the same person’s name, the same person’s domicile at the time of the situation, and there is no evidence to deem that there was D and Dong name as the circumstance name at the time of the above AB. Therefore, each land of this case is presumed to have received the Plaintiff’s fleet D’s prior assessment.

A person registered in the Land Survey Book as an owner shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive by taking into account the circumstances as the landowner unless there is any counter-proof, such as the change in the content of the situation by the adjudication, and shall be presumed to have acquired the land in the original condition, and if it is found that a person other than the title holder of the Preservation Registration has