2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1-2, and evidence No. 2, and the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. On October 20, 1917, which was the day of Japanese colonial rule, Nonparty 1 (from August 2, 1867 to September 3, 1946), was in the following circumstances: (a) one one stalth of 51 forest land in the wall 51 stalth (number 3 omitted); and (b) 408 square meters in the same Ri (number 1 omitted) before February 10, 1914; (c) the above (number 3 omitted) forest was in the name of Nonparty 1 on September 16, 1931; (d) on December 17, 1938, the forest was divided into five stalth of 51 forest land (number 4 omitted); and (e) the forest and field (number 5 omitted); and (e) the forest and field were divided into five stalth of 51 square meters (number 5 omitted).

B. As Nonparty 1 died on September 3, 1946, he completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance with respect to the above (number 5 omitted), Nonparty 11 inherited the above (number 1 omitted) and (number 2 omitted) before the above (number 1 omitted), and Nonparty 11 died on July 14, 1976, Plaintiff 1 (3/6 shares), 2, 3, and 4 (1/6 shares each of them), who is his incidental, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance with respect to the above (number 5 omitted), and he succeeded to the said (number 1 omitted) and (2) before the said (number 2 omitted), and the said (number 5 omitted), the forest and field number of the instant case was modified by the Plaintiff 1, 23, 307, and 47, respectively, to the extent that the forest and field number of each of the instant cases was omitted under the same (number 1 omitted), and the said (number 2 omitted); and (4) the said (5) forest and forest and forest land number of this case was omitted.

C. On February 28, 2008, the Defendant rendered a decision that each of the instant lands belongs to the State on December 29, 2005 under Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State (hereinafter “Special Act”), on the ground that each of the instant lands is recognized as pro-Japanese property under Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the Special Act, and that each of the instant lands is recognized as pro-Japanese property under Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the Special Act, and that each of the instant lands belongs to the State (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) retroactively to the time of the act of causing acquisition as of December 29, 2005, which is the date of entry into force of the Special Act (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The circumstance pertaining to a land and forest survey project is merely a procedure under which ownership is confirmed with no burden on the pertinent land or forest and field. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the ownership is acquired only at the time when the title holder receives the assessment. Nevertheless, under the premise that the situation includes the “acquisition” as stipulated in the latter part of Article 2(2) of the Special Act (hereinafter “instant provision”), the Defendant recognized that Nonparty 1 acquired each of the instant lands during the said period on the ground that Nonparty 1 received the assessment as to each of the instant lands during the period from the opening of the Japanese War to August 15, 1945, and presumed that it was a pro rata property by applying the instant provision, and thus each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

2) In addition, each of the instant lands was acquired before 1764 in order for Nonparty 1 to use it for a mountain, but was deceased in 1764, Nonparty 2 from Nonparty 1’s fifth father of Nonparty 1, who was deceased in 1764, installed and managed the tomb up to Nonparty 1 through high tide, evidence, mutual aid, mutual aid and growth father, and birth father up to Nonparty 1, and it does not constitute a pro-Japanese property merely because Nonparty 1 was under the name of himself around October 20, 1917 and around February 10, 1914.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether each of the lands of this case is presumed as pro-Japanese property

As seen earlier, each of the instant lands was assessed between Nonparty 1, a pro-Japanese and anti-national offender, and August 15, 1945.

The circumstance through the land survey project and forest land survey project was created for the first time by implementing the modern registration system based on the land cadastre and forest land register prepared as a result, and as a matter of principle, the circumstance was conducted by the owner’s report and through a certain verification procedure. However, since the time was very confused as an appraiser, and the ownership report was not filed due to various circumstances, or as the situation was performed with respect to the unregistered real estate and forest land, it does not necessarily mean that the system of circumstance is merely a procedure to confirm the existing ownership of the land or forest land under the title of the circumstance. Furthermore, the title holder of the land or forest land acquired the relevant land or forest by original acquisition of the ownership (Supreme Court Decision 83Meu152 delivered on January 24, 1984). As the existing legal relationship with the relevant land becomes extinguished and becomes acquired by creation of ownership due to the circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the “acquisition” stipulated in the provision of this case includes the acquisition of ownership due to the circumstance.

Therefore, during the Japanese occupation period under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Special Act by Nonparty 1, who is a pro-Japanese and anti-national offender, the land of this case is presumed to be pro-Japanese property.

2) Whether the presumption of the provision of this case has been destroyed

The plaintiffs had been owned by the non-party 1's fleet since before 1764, that each land of this case was owned by the non-party 1's fleets and succeeded to the grave of the fleets, including the non-party 2, the non-party 5's father. However, as acknowledged by the above evidence, the non-party 1 was appointed to the President of the Dok-do, the Dok-do, the Dok-si, the Dok-si, the after the merger of Korea, on October 1, 1910, and was transferred to the President of the Dok-do, on March 28, 1916, and was transferred to the President of the Dok-do, and received special rights such as annual allowances and premiums, etc. from the head of the local administrative agency of the Dok-do, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the land of this case was acquired by the non-party 1's own land and there was no other evidence to recognize that the land of this case was acquired by the non-party 2.

3) Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case, based on the premise that each of the lands of this case is pro-Japanese property pursuant to Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Special Act, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judge Jeong Ho-sung (Presiding Judge)