The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of preservation of ownership was completed on February 17, 1965 with respect to the 2,198 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Suwon-si, Gwangju-si, Suwon-si, Sungwon-nam Branch Office of the Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-nam District Court (2749).

B. The land survey book of the instant land is written D as the land assessment agent.

C. The address of the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, was F in Gwangju-gun, the location of the instant land and E.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is land under the circumstances of D, which is the Plaintiff’s father, and thus, owned by the Plaintiff, who is the Plaintiff’s heir. The Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of initial ownership of the instant land by abusing the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of General Farmland (No. 1657, Sept. 17, 1964; hereinafter “Special Act”) and submitting a false letter of guarantee and a false confirmation, thereby completing registration of initial ownership registration.

In addition, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of ownership for registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) In a case where a person asserts that his/her ownership was acquired by inheritance as a successor of the title holder of assessment, the identity of his/her title holder and his/her title holder ought to be strictly proved, so that the judge may have convictions in connection with the facts acknowledged earlier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da56972, Nov. 24, 201). In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that D recorded in the land survey book is the same person who is not the Plaintiff’s assistant and name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. 2) The registration of ownership preservation under the Special Act accords with the substantive legal relationship that was made in accordance with the lawful procedure prescribed in the same Act.