1. The defendant is based on the restoration of the real name with respect to 10,393 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 1913, the Land Survey Division prepared under the former Land Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 2, 1912, Aug. 13, 1912, hereinafter the same) stated C as being subject to the assessment of KRW 3,144 (hereinafter “instant land”), and the address column of C remains in the blank.

The instant land became 10,393 square meters in Gyeonggi-do, by means of land category, conversion into area, reorganization of a speculative zone, etc.

B. On April 9, 1929, the Plaintiff’s fleet E, had its permanent domicile in the “F of the Gyeonggi-gun,” and transferred it to G of the G of the G of the G of the G of the G of the G of the G.

On March 23, 1939, E died on the part of the son, H solely inherited the property of H, and H died on July 22, 1947, and I inherited the property of H solely. I died on November 28, 2010, and died on November 28, 2010 (the son, his mother, October 1, 1967, and the son, the son, the son, respectively, died on September 16, 193) and L respectively.

C. The Defendant completed registration of initial ownership of the instant land on October 7, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the existence of the identity of the Plaintiff’s prior to the existence of the identity between the Plaintiff’s prior domicile and the title holder, the name of C and the Plaintiff’s prior domicile are identical to the name of the title holder of the land in this case, and the name of E, the title holder of the circumstance, C, and the Plaintiff’s prior domicile to April 9, 1929, respectively.

In addition, in full view of the description of evidence No. 6, the fact-finding, the result of fact-finding, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s preference E and Dong name were not found in the sports team M at the time of the instant land’s situation. The Plaintiff’s decedent I was the heir of E, and the Defendant against the Defendant regarding eight parcels, such as Gyeonggi-gun N, Gyeonggi-do, and Gyeonggi-do, where E was under the circumstances of E.