1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Each land listed in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “each land of this case”) is the land under the circumstance of the Plaintiff’s Ba B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Ba”), which is the Plaintiff’s son B, due to the Plaintiff’s death on April 5, 1987, and the heir, including the Plaintiff, succeeded to each land of this case. The Plaintiff acquired shares of the heir C, D, E, and F, thereby owning 10/23 shares. As such, the Plaintiff had a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the Defendant for the purpose of completing registration of preservation of ownership. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the above shares owned by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination:

(a) Any person who is assessed as a landowner in a land survey project conducted under the Decree on Land Survey during the Japanese Occupation Period as a landowner shall acquire the ownership of the land in question in a primary and creative manner, and the situation shall address the starting point of the land ownership relationship;

In addition, despite the probability that there have been a significant cause of change in transaction or other legal relations with respect to land for a long period of time from the land situation to the year of 100 years, the former part of our society, and other significant social and economic changes, or the trend of use of land, etc., the descendants of the person under the circumstance can easily prove the acquisition by succession of the land ownership, which had the person under the circumstances, based on the comprehensive cause of succession to the right of inheritance.

Considering such circumstances, in a case where a person asserts in a lawsuit that he/she acquired ownership by inheritance as a successor of the title holder of assessment, his/her identity with the title holder and the title holder of assessment should be strictly proved, so that the judge can have convictions as to such fact, and such fact should not be inferred without permission, even though there are circumstances leading to doubt as to such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da56972, Nov. 24, 201).

Written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 shall be written.