2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On January 15, 1944, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name C was completed on January 15, 194 with respect to the 830 square meters wide (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

As to the instant real estate, Defendant D, its father, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on February 29, 1984 on the grounds of sale on December 20, 1970, and the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on January 8, 2015 on the grounds of inheritance by consultation division on January 8, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff as to the purport of the whole argument is that the real estate of this case constitutes property devolving upon the property owned by Japan, Japan, and thus, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case on Jan. 1, 1965 under the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging, and there was no subsequent distribution or sale of the

Nevertheless, since the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant was completed in sequence through D, the father of the defendant regarding the real estate in this case, it is the registration of invalidity of cause.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name.

Judgment

We examine whether C is a Japanese person.

In light of the fact that, during the period from around 1940 to August 15, 1945, a considerable number of Korean nationals had opened a new name in Japanese form, it is difficult to conclude that the above C is Japan solely on the ground that the former owner of the instant real estate was written C, and according to the evidence No. 3, the “E” constituting the name during C is the same as the father of D, and there is no evidence to conclude that C is Japan.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case on a different premise is without any need to examine the remainder.