1. The defendant on August 14, 1995, as to the real estate stated in the attached list 1 attached hereto to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese occupation occupation period, Daehan-gun B, 542 (hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case 1”) and C 690 (hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case 2”) state that D Do having a domicile in the same Ri was under the circumstances of June 20, 191.

(b) The land listed in the separate sheet 1 was divided into the land of this case after the conversion of the area unit, the change of land category, and the reorganization of administrative districts, and the land listed in the separate sheet 2 to 5 was divided into the land of this case.

C. At the time of the above circumstances, E, the Plaintiff’s fleet, had his permanent domicile in the Gyeonggi-do Seosung-gun F (U.S. H on October 1, 1941, and the name of the administrative district was changed in sequence I on August 15, 1949, in sequence), and died on March 17, 1955, and his son, his son, the son of J died first, and his son, the son of J died first, and the Plaintiff, the son of K, the son of K, was to inherit D’s own property on his own.

Attached Form

Of each land listed in the list (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”), the land listed in paragraph (1) is the Suwon District Court, the Seowon District Court, the Seosung District Court, No. 41484, which was received on August 14, 1995, and the land listed in the list 2 through 5, the registration of preservation of ownership in each Defendant’s name was completed on May 31, 1995 by the same registry office No. 27680.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (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 above facts, we examine the identity of the Plaintiff’s fleet and the title holder of the assessment, and the facts of recognition as seen earlier, it is identical to D and the name of the Plaintiff’s prior E, a title holder of each of the circumstances in this case, to the Chinese territory. The address of the title holder D and the legal domicile of the Plaintiff’s prior E, at the time of the situation of the Plaintiff’s prior E, are the same as the unit of Ri. When each of the circumstances in this case occurred, several persons other than the Plaintiff’s prior E, in Suwon L, around