1. The defendant, on April 10, 1996, filed with the plaintiffs with Suwon District Court in relation to the size of 896 square meters and 145 square meters prior to G in Inju-si.

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Land Survey Division prepared by the Land Survey Project at the Japanese Occupation Period, the Gyeonggi-do “1,071 square meters” (hereinafter “this case’s land before subdivision”) is indicated as being under the circumstances of J.

B. Thereafter, on December 30, 1958, the land prior to the division was divided into G or K land including G/K with a size of 896 square meters and 145 square meters prior to H (hereinafter “each of the instant land”). C. The land prior to the division was the land subject to farmland distribution under the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter “former Farmland Reform Act”). The remaining land, other than each of the instant land, out of the land partitioned from the land prior to the division, was completed distribution to a third party, while the remaining land, other than the instant land, has been divided into five parts of the land prior to the division, and the registration of ownership preservation under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”), was received on April 10, 1996, and the Plaintiffs died and five parts of the Plaintiff’s joint ownership preservation registration (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s remaining property”) under the name of 2,500,000.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 (including separate numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. First, according to the results of the inquiry into the owner (1) of the land before the division of this case, the L/W as indicated in the owner column of the land cadastre, the old land cadastre, the prop report, and the land confirmation schedule for each prop-by-product farmland, etc., and whether the plaintiffs are identical to L/W, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 8-1 and 8-2, Gap evidence 8-1 and 8-2, and the fact inquiry into the owner of each of the lands of this case, and the plaintiffs' fleets counter each of the above documents.