1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 30, 1919, C is registered in the Forest Survey Division prepared in the Japanese occupation period as the owner of the 4th 8th 2th Y of Gwangju-gun in Gyeonggi-do.

B. Meanwhile, in the national forest ledger, D, Japan, is registered as the owner of the above land.

C. After that, on August 3, 1960, the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership”) was completed on the above land (the unit conversion and change of the name of the administrative district: 47,802 square meters in Gwangju City City, Gwangju City, Gwangju, and 202 square meters, hereinafter “instant land”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A 1-3, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including branch numbers), and the fact-finding with the Seoul Record Office of this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion is registered as the owner of the instant land in the Forest Survey Division, E, the Plaintiff’s fleet, is presumed to have become final and conclusive, and where it is found that there is another person to whom the said land was assessed, the presumption power of registration of preservation of ownership of this case is broken, so the above registration is null and void, unless the Defendant, who is the registered titleholder, does not specifically assert or prove the fact of acquisition by succession.

Therefore, as shown in the separate report, one of the co-inheritors of E is the act of preserving the jointly-owned property, and the plaintiff is seeking the cancellation registration procedure of the registration of the preservation of ownership of this case against the defendant.

B. Even if C, the assessment title of the land of this case, is the Plaintiff’s preference, according to the State Forest Register on the said land, the said land was owned by Japan as of August 9, 1945, and was owned by Japan as of August 9, 1945, and was reverted to the Defendant, and thus, the registration of preservation of ownership of this case is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship.

3. Determination

A. Before the relevant legal doctrine was destroyed due to an incident.