1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around June 30, 1913, the old-si B Cemetery No. 3038 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was assessed in the name of Non-Party B (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. The instant land is currently unregistered.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was originally owned by the Plaintiff’s literature, and the deceased was a clan member of the Plaintiff’s literature, and there was no legal provision that could become a clan member at the time of the circumstances of the instant land, and the Plaintiff’s door merely received the assessment of the instant land in the name of the deceased, a clan, under the name of the deceased,. As such, the Plaintiff’s door, as a title truster of the instant land, sought confirmation that the Plaintiff had ownership of the instant land against the Defendant by subrogation, in order to preserve the claim for the termination of a title trust agreement against the deceased’s heir, who

B. A person who received an assessment under the Land Investigation Order in the Japanese colonial rule shall acquire ownership in the original, creative, and when a clan title trusts real estate, the ownership belongs to the trustee externally, and the title trust contract was terminated due to the termination, etc. of the title trust contract.

Even until the registration is completed in the name of the truster, the truster cannot acquire the ownership.

Therefore, it is reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da10858, Jan. 25, 1991). Even if the deceased is a member of the Plaintiff’s body, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s text recognizes the fact of title trust of the instant land to the deceased, the instant land can only be deemed to have been originally owned by the deceased, along with the circumstances, and the Plaintiff’s door cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the instant land. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion, which is premised on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, is the owner of the instant land, need not be examined further.