1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The land indicated in the list of real estate attached to the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by the wife (L) of the Dong K’s Department to the Plaintiff’s prior to the death of K, and the land was transferred to the wife of K after the death of K, and was under the name of J, the wife of K around 1914.

J Around 1947, the Plaintiffs inherited the instant land through J’s wife of the J, the South-North Sea M and the network M.

However, since the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on October 13, 1995 on the instant land, the Plaintiffs seek against the Defendant the implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name.

2. Determination:

(a) Any person who is assessed as a landowner in a land survey project conducted under the Decree on Land Survey during the Japanese Occupation Period as a landowner shall acquire the ownership of the land in question in a primary and creative manner, and the situation shall address the starting point of the land ownership relationship;

In addition, despite the probability that there have been a significant cause of change in transaction or other legal relations with respect to land for a long period of time from the land situation to the year of 100 years, the former part of our society, and other significant social and economic changes, or the trend of use of land, etc., the descendants of the person under the circumstance can easily prove the acquisition by succession of the land ownership, which had the person under the circumstances, based on the comprehensive cause of succession to the right of inheritance.

Considering such circumstances, in a case where a person asserts in a lawsuit that he/she acquired ownership by inheritance as a successor of the title holder of assessment, his/her identity with the title holder and the title holder of assessment should be strictly proved, so that the judge can 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 2011Da56972, Nov. 24, 201).

Written evidence Nos. 1 and 5 are written.