1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant is the District Court with respect to the Plaintiff, ① Dongcheon-si E Large Scale 228 square meters.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the land survey report or forest survey report prepared at the time of the land survey project or forest survey project of the Japanese colonial system, the land survey report or forest survey report of the Gyeonggi-gun Group B (current C) E, 69 to F, 327 to G, 607 to H, 37 to H, 0.1 to J, 0.42 to K, and 0.71 to K to the owner.

B. On June 25, 200, each of the above lands was registered for restoration to the instant land indicated in the separate sheet after the cadastral record, such as the registry, was destroyed by war, and the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on the ground that the instant land was an unregistered real estate.

C. On February 23, 1940, S (M) died, Q Q inherited the miscarriage solely, and Q has died on July 16, 1943, and Q inherited the miscarriage solely. O declared missing on November 28, 1995 without the heir, and C and U were declared missing on December 31, 195 without the heir.

P The heir of the next rank of theO is a collateral blood relative within the fourth degree of relationship in the fourth degree of relationship in November 28, 1995 and there is a V, W, X, and the plaintiff as a collateral blood relative within the fourth degree of relationship in the fourth degree of relationship.

(R’s other children have Y, Z, and AA, but they died before November 28, 1995).

The plaintiff's prior domicile of Q andO resided in Macheon-gun D before birth, and the permanent domicile of Q andO is Macheon-si N.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including each number), and fact-finding to the Government District Court of the Party Tribunal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination: (a) in light of the following: (b) L which was investigated as the owner of the instant land at the time of the land or forest research project and the Plaintiff’s Chinese name, the Plaintiff’s fleet, correspond to M; (c) the Plaintiffs’ prior-user S resided in D, the location of the instant land, until the time of death in 1940; (c) there was no evidence to deem that there was L and Dong name in D (if there was Dong name, there was an entry to that effect in the Land Survey Division, etc.).