1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. In a case where a person claiming the right of ownership by inheritance, who is the title holder of the judgment of the court of first instance, claims a lawsuit that he/she succeeded to ownership by inheritance, the identity of his/her title holder and his/her title holder ought to be strictly proved and thus his/her conviction may be ensured by a judge (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da1382, Oct. 25, 2012). In full view of the evidence and the result of pleadings submitted by the plaintiffs at the court of first instance in light of the following: (a) evidence No. 22-1 and evidence No. 33 submitted by the plaintiffs at the court of first instance; (b) it is difficult to deem that L, the title holder of the plaintiffs, is the same as I, the title holder of the land of this case, and thus, it does not appear that there was any error in the judgment of

[을 제1, 2호증의 각 기재와 제1심법원의 서초구청장에 대한 사실조회결과에 의하면 경기도 광주군 H리에 성명이 ‘I’으로 제적등본이 편제된 사람은 1명이었고, 그 제적등본상 I(1868년생)은 S(1877년생)을 처로 두고, 아들이 없이 딸만 3명이 있었던 사실, 위 I이 1937. 3. 9. 사망하자 위 S이 1937. 4. 8. 호주상속을 하였고 그 후 위 S도 사망하였는데 상속인이 없어 절가(絶家)가 되었음을 원인으로 1944. 11. 1. 호적이 폐쇄된 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 위 인정 사실에 의하면 위 I과 원고들의 선대인 M의 제적등본에 나타나 있는 M(1890년생)의 부(父 L이 동일인이라고 보기는 어렵다.

In this regard, the plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff is not able to recognize the credibility of the above multiple copies on the ground that the plaintiff is merely O of the Gyeonggi-gun and there is no record that the above land was divided, but the above I's multiple copies, which are official documents presumed to have been established, are stated as Gyeonggi-gun R in the original domicile column of the above I. However, the above I's multiple copies, which are official documents presumed to have been established merely because the cadastral division was not confirmed.