A. B B B, the land category of which was claimed to be “responding”, but appears to be written in Gap’s evidence No. 1, and thus, the land in this case was divided into real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) on December 26, 198 and land in Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun C on December 26, 198, following the land conversion registration, division, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On March 31, 1914, the land survey report prepared at the time of Japanese occupation, and the address of the land under the assessment of this case is indicated as D, which is a public column, as the assessment was made on March 31, 1914.

C. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant land entered in the text.

(hereinafter “instant registration of initial ownership”) D.

On the other hand, on October 25, 1940, the Plaintiff’s fleet D, whose permanent domicile is in the Gyeonggi-si E, died on October 25, 1940, and his head F succeeded to Australia and the property. The F died on August 17, 1972 and jointly succeeded by his wife G and H, who is his wife G and children. On March 6, 1975, G died on March 6, 1975, and H was jointly succeeded by the Plaintiff and H, and H was deceased on April 10, 1995, and jointly succeeded by J and K, one of its wife I and children. The inheritance shares are as shown in the attached Form 2 inheritance shares.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In light of the following, it is reasonable to view that the assessment titleholder and the Plaintiff’s fleet D are the same person.

The phrase “Article 4 subparag. 4 of the Regulations of the Provisional Land Survey Bureau concerning the Entry in Land and Forest Survey Division,” which was enacted in accordance with the former Land Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 13, 1912, Aug. 13, 1912), stating that the name of the owner is identical to that of the land in this case, and Article 2(2) of the same Ordinance provides that “Where the address of the owner is the same as that of the land, the address shall be omitted, and the face, Gun, or Do is the same.”