1. The defendant shall accept on April 24, 1996 each land listed in the attached list to the plaintiff as to each land in the Suwon District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. In the Land Survey Division drawn up during the Japanese occupation period, C residing in the same Ri with the Gyeonggi Won-gun B of 296 square meters is indicated as having received the assessment.

(2) The land of this case was classified into each of the lands listed in [Attachment 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “each of the lands of this case”) and D by means of land division, land category change, and cadastral conversion.

B. As to each of the instant lands, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on April 24, 1996, which was received on April 24, 1996 by the Suwon District Court, No. 23344.

C. C’s death on December 29, 195 and inheritance of E’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son, Plaintiff, H, I,

On the premise that each of the instant lands is inherited property of E, the above inheritors agreed to the sole inheritance of each of the instant lands by the Plaintiff, one of them.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 15 (including each number), the fact inquiry results against Pyeongtaek si Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. (1) The title holder of the land under the former Land Survey Order (Ordinance No. 2 of August 13, 1912), who is a title holder of the land under the former Land Survey Order (Ordinance No. 2 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 13, 1912), is the owner of the land, so if the land survey division was prepared and circumstances were assessed against the title holder,

Therefore, if it is proved that there is another person to whom the land is assessed, the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership on the land is invalid, unless the person to whom the land is assessed and the person to whom the registration was made fails to specifically assert and prove the acquisition thereof.

(2) According to the above facts, each of the instant land was divided from the instant assessment land under the circumstances of C, and thus, the Defendant was divided into the instant assessment land.