1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The land cadastre, which was drafted on October 2, 1976, is the unregistered land of 93.9 square meters on the Masan-gu, Changwon-si B road (hereinafter “instant land”). The land cadastre, written on October 2, 1976, indicated as being the Plaintiff and two (2) owners.

B. The instant land is a newly set parcel number and land category upon completion of the partition arrangement on June 3, 1975.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion is written on the land cadastre of this case, the Plaintiff and two other owners are indicated as owners, it is presumed that the Plaintiff and two others are the owners of this case’s land.

However, since there is no data to verify the identity of two persons except the plaintiff, and there is no fact that he reported the restoration to the co-owner, he/she should be deemed to have renounced his/her shares.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 267 of the Civil Code, 2/3 shares, which are the above 2/3 shares, belong to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's ownership is sought to confirm that it belongs to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) The land cadastre as to whether the Plaintiff and two other persons are the owners of the instant land should be respected, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da748, May 27, 1980). Thus, the land of this case is presumed to be the owner of the instant land, unless there is any counter-proof (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da1431, Sept. 28, 1976). As seen earlier, the land of this case is registered as the Plaintiff and two other persons, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff and two other persons.

As to this, the defendant's land cadastre which was arbitrarily restored by the competent authority before the enforcement of the Cadastral Act, which was wholly amended on December 31, 1975, without any legal basis, on the ground that there is no presumption of the owner's right.