1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 30, 1919, the Plaintiff was under the circumstances of G, H, and I land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land before the instant land substitution”), and was subject to registration conversion into G, H, and I land ( collectively referred to as “the instant land before the instant land substitution”).

B. After the administrative district was changed to Jdong in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the land prior to the instant land substitution was jointly replaced on April 10, 1982 by the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 545.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On May 21, 1965, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership preservation on the land before the land substitution, and there was no distribution of the land before the land substitution was implemented at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.

On March 19, 1971, K et al., public officials belonging to the Republic of Korea, completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of L, which was based on the completion of repayment, by falsely preparing farmland tax invoices and repayment ledgers.

Since then, regarding the land before the land substitution of this case, the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on June 11, 1974, N, andO, the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on February 28, 1975, the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on November 1, 1975 in P, the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on February 1, 1978, and the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on February 1, 1978.

In addition, the defendant transferred the entire shares of Q on June 7, 1978 and became a single registration titleholder of the land of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 8 (if there is an additional number, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Although the land of this case was registered as if it were allocated and repaid in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act, it was not actually distributed and returned to the Plaintiff, and the transfer registration of ownership on the land prior to the land substitution was forged by a public official in charge of farmland belonging to the Republic of Korea.