1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Each land listed in the separate list of the gists of the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “each land of this case”) was assessed against B, a part of the Plaintiff’s increase in 43 years (1911).

On September 26, 1959, C, his children, died on September 26, 1959, and D, his children and the father of the Plaintiff, died on July 10, 1950, which was the previous father, the Plaintiff inherited each of the instant lands as C’s grandchildren and family heir.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of preservation of ownership in the purport of the claim, which was completed without any cause on each land of this case.

B. A person, subject to a land survey conducted under the Decree on Land Survey under a given period of time, acquires the ownership of the land in question from an original and creative perspective, who deals with the starting point of the land ownership relationship.

In addition, despite the probability that there has been a lot of causes for change in the transaction of land and other legal relations for a long period of time near 100 years since the land assessment, the former part of our society, and other significant social and economic changes, or the trend of use of land, etc., the latter part of the situation may prove that the latter part of the situation may be easily proved by the comprehensive cause of succession to the right of the land, which had the name of the situation, based on the comprehensive cause of succession

Considering these circumstances, in a case where a person asserts that his/her ownership was acquired by inheritance as a successor of the title holder of assessment, the identity of his/her fleet and the title holder of assessment should be strictly proved, so that the judge can have convictions as to his/her ownership, and it should not be inferred without permission, even though there are circumstances that may raise doubt as to this point (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da45924, Nov. 26, 2009).