1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of this court concerning this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(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 these circumstances, in a case where a person asserts in a lawsuit that his/her ownership was acquired by inheritance as a successor of the person under the circumstance’s title by inheritance, his/her identity and identity of the person under the circumstance’s title should be strictly proved, so that the judge can have convictions in the case, and it should not be inferred without permission, even though there are circumstances that may raise doubt about this point.

On the other hand, reasonable and reasonable grounds should be presented in order to recognize that the name of the person entered as the circumstance in the Land Survey Book is identical to the name and name of the person who is well known to the party as the same person.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Da56972 Decided November 24, 2011 (see, e.g., registration of ownership transfer). (B)

이 사건으로 돌아와, 사정명의인인 E이 원고의 조부(祖父)인 망 G과 동일인인지에 관하여 살펴본다.

(1) The whole purport of the pleadings is as follows: macroscopic evidence and evidence Nos. 4 and 10.