1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are as follows: “each registration of initial ownership (hereinafter “each of the preservation registrations of this case”) has been completed” of the first instance judgment Nos. 2, 9 and 10, and “each of the preservation registrations of this case (hereinafter “each of the preservation registrations of this case”) shall be as follows: “each registration of initial ownership and registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “each of the preservation registrations of this case”) has been completed; “No. 26, 1948” of the second part shall be as “No. 26, 1943, April 26, 1943”; and “the fact of recognition of the first instance judgment” shall be as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the second part as “No. 26, 1943.”

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was subject to the Plaintiff’s view that the land before the instant partition was divided into the land before the instant partition, and thus, each of the instant preservation registrations and transfer registrations, which were completed with respect to each of the instant land divided from the land before the instant partition, should be cancelled as the cause becomes null and void. As one of the co-owners who jointly inherited each of the instant land, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of each of the instant preservation registrations and transfer registrations, which were conducted by the joint owners of the instant land.

B. Determination 1) Unless there is any counter-proof that the situation has been changed by adjudication, a person registered as a landowner in the land investigation department of the relevant legal principles is presumed to be the land owner and the circumstances have been determined. Thus, Article 2 of the former Decree on the Land Investigation (Ordinance No. 5692, Aug. 13, 1912) of the former Decree on the Land Investigation (Ordinance No. 2 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 2) provides that “a disposition, speed, and other actions taken under the previous provisions shall be deemed to have been taken under this Ordinance.” Thus, even in a case where a person is registered as a land owner before the former Decree on the Land Investigation, etc. under a land investigation project, etc., unless there is any counter-proof such as the change of the content, the circumstance shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5692, Mar. 26, 2009.