1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 19, 194, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of B was completed on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 30, 1994 with respect to the real estate of this case on February 10, 1957.

[Recognitions] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes property devolving upon the property owned by Japan, and the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant land on January 1, 1965 under the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, and there was no subsequent distribution or sale of the instant land to others.

Nevertheless, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant has been completed with respect to the land in this case, such registration is invalid.

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

3. According to the Plaintiff’s request for fact-finding and written reply of fact-finding on April 5, 2017, the Plaintiff requested a fact-finding inquiry as to whether there was materials such as a certified copy of the removal against B, or whether there is materials such as whether B is Korean or Japan, and there was a reply that there was no relevant materials from the office of complete Gun.

However, during the period from around 1940 to August 15, 1945, the fact that most Korean nationals had opened a new name in Japanese form is the fact of the announcement. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the above B is a Japanese person merely because the former owner of the instant land was written in B, and it is difficult to readily conclude that B is a Japanese person solely on the ground that the aforementioned removal of a previous owner of the instant land was not present, and no other evidence was submitted to acknowledge B as a Japanese person.

Therefore, it is based on this premise.