1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as follows: “Around 1912.” in the second and nine pages of the judgment of the first instance; “A person inherited” in the third and ten parts of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da46411, Apr. 11, 1995); “A person inherited” in the 11st sentence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da18085, Sept. 25, 1992); and “A person inherited” in the 11st sentence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da18085, Sept. 25, 1992). As such, this part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the Plaintiff’s prior G as the Plaintiff’s land was incorporated into the Han River or the Han River which is a national river, the Defendant is obligated to pay compensation for losses arising from the incorporation of the said land to the Plaintiff, who succeeded to the said G in sequence pursuant to Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers.

B. The relevant legal principles and relevant legal principles 1: (a) a person who was assessed as a land owner in a land survey project conducted under the Land Survey Order under the Japanese occupation point below, acquires the ownership of the pertinent land from an original and creative perspective; and (b) the circumstance deals with the starting point of the land ownership relationship.

In addition, despite the probability that there have been a significant cause of change in transaction and other legal relations with respect to land for a long time from the land situation to the year of 100, there have been a lot of causes of change in land transaction and other legal relations, and between them, other significant social and economic changes or the trend of use, etc., the descendants of the person under the circumstance may prove, once by the comprehensive cause of succession of the right, the acquisition by succession of the land ownership, a person under the circumstances, who was the

Considering these circumstances, the identity of the person in charge of assessment and the identity of the person in charge of assessment in a case where the person asserts that he/she succeeded to the ownership by inheritance as a successor of the person in charge of assessment.