1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Land Survey Book prepared in the Japanese colonial era, F, who has an address in the Gandong-Jungdong-dong (Ddong was changed to the Seoul E-dong on April 1, 1914) on October 1, 1913, stated that the F, which was located in the Gandong-gun, Gyeonggi Yang-gun C, 1514 (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”), was under the circumstance of the F, which was located in the Gandong-dong (Seoul E-dong.).

B. Meanwhile, H, whose permanent domicile is in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, died on November 26, 1925, and succeeded to Australia and its head, who is his/her South-North, and the Plaintiff, his/her wife, died on December 20, 1995 and died on August 26, 2005, inherited his/her property.

C. On December 20, 1960, the land prior to the instant partition was divided into 489 square meters in K-gun, Yangju-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”) and 1,207 square meters in L field.

On December 16, 1995, the defendant completed the registration of initial ownership in order to receive the Namyang District Court's receipt of the Namyang District Court's receipt of the Namyang District Court's registry office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. A person registered as an owner in the Land Survey Book regarding the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim shall be presumed to have been determined by the land owner in the absence of any counter-proof such as the change of the circumstances by the adjudication, etc.

In light of the above facts, F, the circumstance titleholder, is identical with H, and the address of the situation titleholder stated in the land survey book is also consistent with the Plaintiff’s prior domicile. As such, F, the circumstance titleholder, appears to be the same person as H and the Plaintiff’s prior domicile, the instant land was initially acquired under the circumstances of H, under the circumstances of the Plaintiff’s prior domicile.

I would like to say.

Therefore, registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the land of this case has become broken, unless there are special circumstances.