beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C’s circumstances in the name of each of the instant real estate are five years old E, and C is the Plaintiff’s increased portion. 2) C acquired ownership under the circumstances of each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate, regardless of whether before and after the division thereof,” between February 28, 1913 and August 25, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”), and when referring to a specific sequence of real estate, the ownership was acquired under the pertinent order.
B. 1) Registration in the name of the defendant for each real estate of this case 1) Registration in the name of the plaintiff, 7 years of age E, for the real estate of June 17, 1970 . 7 July 14, 1970 . 2) The defendant completed registration of preservation of the ownership for the real estate of this case . 4 years of age 15 . 2) Pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer, etc. of Ownership of the former Real Estate (Act No. 3562) being enforced at the time, the registration of the transfer for the real estate of April 14, 1985 . 8 years of age 10 to 13 years of age 195 .
3) In accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, which was in force on June 14, 1995, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on May 20, 1982, the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on June 20, 1982, and the donation on March 10, 1982, regarding the third real estate. (C) The F died on April 20, 1995.
2) At the time of F’s death, the heir was G, H, I, J, K, K, L, M, and the Plaintiff. The remaining inheritors, other than the Plaintiff, filed a report of renunciation of inheritance with the Suwon District Court on August 17, 1995 and received a judgment from the above court on August 17, 1995 (U.S. District Court 95No.894-900). The fact that there was no dispute as to the ground for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1 through 17, and Eul’s evidence 1 (if any, the number is included; hereinafter the same).