1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The Plaintiffs and the network B claimed the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in each Defendant’s name as to ① 1,359 square meters in the Gyeonggi-do E, Gyeonggi-do, ② F 447 square meters in size, ③ G 1,685 square meters in size, and the first instance court accepted all of them.

In this regard, the defendant appealed against the cited part of the land (3). Thus, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim part on the land (3).

③ The land is called “instant land”.

2. Basic facts

A. According to the Land Survey Division drawn up under the Japanese colonial Rule, K, which has an address in the Gyeonggi-do Hri (which was changed to the Gyeonggi-do Mho-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and will be omitted until I; hereinafter the same shall apply), was assessed on June 15, 1921 on the land A on June 15, 1921 (Seoul 10 years).

B. AA’s land was restored from F to F 645 square meters, and on September 13, 1967, the land category was changed from B to B.C. The owner’s column for land cadastre restored included K.

The defendant (Ministry of National Defense) completed the registration of initial ownership on the above land by the Jung-gu District Court of the Republic of Korea Office of National Defense No. 2956 of May 10, 1978.

On October 11, 1999, the above land was converted into a unit area of 2,132 square meters from 645 square meters to 2,132 square meters, and was divided into F large-scale 447 square meters on September 19, 200 and the instant land.

C. On May 30, 2018, during the instant court proceeding, the deceased died, and the Plaintiffs, as co-inheritors, taken over the deceased’s lawsuit as co-inheritors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the cause of a claim is presumed to have been made on the land owner under the former Land Investigation Ordinance unless there is any counter-proof that the content of the situation has been changed by an adjudication, etc., and the circumstance has become final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da13686, Sept. 8, 1998). The person under the circumstance shall be the relevant land.