1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On October 15, 1917, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant land was examined by C, the Plaintiff’s fleet, and C died on January 20, 1924, and C succeeded to the instant land solely by inheritance, and D, its children, died on December 3, 1945, and E, etc., which was the Plaintiff’s father, died at the time of 625 War. Since E, who was married to F, the Plaintiff’s father and gave birth to G, the Plaintiff was eventually succeeded to the instant land.

Therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was completed on the land of this case, is an invalid registration, and thus the cancellation thereof is sought.

2. Determination

(a)A person who is assessed as a landowner in a land survey project undertaken under a given order of land surveys under the given order shall acquire the ownership of the land in question in a primary and creative manner, and the circumstances address the starting point of the land ownership relationship.

However, notwithstanding the probability that there has been a lot of causes for change in the transaction of land and other legal relations for a long period of time near 100 years since the land situation, the former part of our society, and other significant social and economic changes, or the trend of use of land, etc., the latter part of the situation may be easily proven that the latter part of the land owner, who had the name of the situation, was able to acquire the ownership by succession, based on the comprehensive cause of succession to the right.

Considering such circumstances, in a case where a person asserts that his/her ownership was acquired by inheritance as a successor of the person under the title of assessment, his/her identity and the person under the title of assessment should be strictly proved, and the judge should be able to 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 2009Da45924, Nov. 26, 2009).

First, in this case, the Plaintiff’s fleet C’s land of this case.