1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant on January 1, 1985 with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 2 to 5, evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 1, 2, 6, and 7 (including paper numbers), the testimony of the witness at the trial, the testimony of the witness at the trial, the evidence 1-1 to 7 of Gap evidence 1 as a whole, and the purport of all the images and arguments.

(Witness H testified as a result of several confusions at the time of the purchase of the instant land, but this seems to be due to the limitation of the memory of a person who experienced a long fact at the time H made a testimony. Accordingly, the credibility of the witness H’s testimony cannot be rejected).

As to the land listed in the annexed list No. 1 on the land cadastre as of August 7, 1919 and the land listed in the annexed list No. 2 as of February 15, 1918, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of D, Japan, was completed as of February 15, 1918. Pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963), each registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed on January 16, 1993.

B. At around 1944, I purchased the instant land from Japan, Japan, which was living in the next house, and died on March 1946 from the time when I purchased the said land and then made a house composed of the above wood.

I's spouse G completed the house work I executed by the I, and lived in the house with the I.

C. A around 1955, G sold this case’s land to Simman E.

From that time, E occupied the instant land, and thereafter F succeeded to the said possession due to the death of E, and the Plaintiff, his spouse due to the death of F, succeeded to the said possession from 199 to that time.

2. Determination

A. The purport of the provision of Article 2 of the Maritime Affairs and Security Act No. 2, No. 1, 33, of the Maritime Affairs and Security Act is to prohibit the disposal of property owned by Japan under the present state on August 9, 1945, based on the method of public notice as to the change in real rights by the Maritime Affairs and Security Office.