1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the land of this case 1 was the land of this case under the circumstances of the network B in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s prior name B was written on the land of this case. The land of this case was the land owned by the network B in light of the fact that the documents prepared by the D Association were written as the owner at the time of Japanese occupation occupation. The Defendant completed each registration of preservation of ownership as stated in the claim regarding the land of this case 1 and 2 (hereinafter “each of this case’s registration of preservation of ownership”). Thus, the Defendant is liable for the Plaintiff, one of the deceased’s successors, to implement the registration procedure of cancellation of each of this case’s registration of preservation of ownership.

2. From the fact that a certain person’s name is indicated in the cadastral support for judgment on the land of this case, it cannot be presumed immediately that the person was the owner of the land, but the land survey division, which is a public book for circumstance, is prepared based on the spot survey register prepared based on the cadastral support record. Thus, such fact is a valuable material that makes the person be considered as the owner of the land.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da4005 delivered on April 7, 2000, etc.). However, according to the statement of evidence No. 3, the fact that the registration of preservation of ownership has been completed in the name of C, children G, and G wife H, as to the land adjacent to the land of this case, according to each of the evidence No. 15 through No. 21 (including the virtual number) on the cadastral source map prepared at the time of Japanese colonial rule, it can be acknowledged that the registration of preservation of ownership has been completed in the name of C, C, G, and G H.

However, solely on the above circumstances, it is difficult to view C as having received an assessment of the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Plaintiff’s assertion on the land of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff’s fleet B was subject to the assessment of the land of this case is without merit without any need to examine the remainder of the land.

3...