beta
Text
1. It shall be confirmed that 3/5 of the value of 9,917 square meters in B forest land in Pakistan is owned by the Plaintiff;
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese occupation occupation period, “one of the forests and fields B” was found to be “D in C” on June 15, 1918.
The above circumstances became the land “Yju-si B forest No. 9,917 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). B The instant land is unregistered, and the land owner was not restored in accordance with the forest land register. (c) The Plaintiff’s attached E is the land owner in the forest land register; (c) the Plaintiff’s wife and the South-Nam-do Plaintiff and the South-Nam-do G. The Plaintiff died on March 25, 1981, and the Plaintiff succeeded to Australia. The F died on September 3, 1983. G was dead on January 8, 201, and the wife and H and 6 other. The Plaintiff’s attached E was born at the “JJ of Gyeonggi-do,” and the Plaintiff was born at the said domicile. (e) The Plaintiff’s permanent domicile before the Plaintiff’s E transferred to Jongno-do K is the “Seoul-do military self-Governing Province.”
F. At the time of Pakistan, the family register(s) book of Lan area was destroyed by a disaster of 6.25.
6.25 There shall be no re-preparationd family register(s) and injury D and Dong name after the incident;
[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Considering the following circumstances revealed in the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the same person, who is the Plaintiff’s attached E and the instant land assessment titleholder, is the same.
(1) The names of the Plaintiff’s prior E and D, the circumstantial name of the Plaintiff, are the same.
② The land survey division is “C” with the address of “C”, and the Plaintiff’s attachment E and the Plaintiff’s original guidance.
(3) At the time of the preparation of the Land Survey Book, there is no evidence to see that the situation-based D and Dong have resided therein.
As long as the land of this case was assessed against the Plaintiff’s fleet E, 3/5 of the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, the heir of Australia.
The instant land is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the Defendant.