1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the court below acknowledged the fact that the registration of ownership preservation in the defendant's name, such as the written claim as to the land of this case, was completed on May 18, 1913, by the fact that 754 square meters was under the circumstances of D residing in C on May 18, 191 (the year 1913). The above land was subject to the change of the name of the administrative district and the conversion into the area unit, and that the registration record on the land of this case was destroyed on February 28, 1980, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed on February 28, 1980.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff's assertion on this issue is that the land of this case was purchased from D, the father of the plaintiff, and completed the registration of ownership transfer from D or his heir, the assessment titleholder around 1930.

Therefore, registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name is a registration of invalidation of cause, and should be cancelled.

Even if it is not so, E has been occupied as farmland from June 1941 to March 3, 1970, and the Plaintiff thereafter has occupied the land in this case as farmland, and E has acquired the land in this case by prescription around June 1961.

On the other hand, as long as the land of this case was proved to have been assessed D, the presumption of ownership preservation in the name of the defendant was reversed, and the defendant is obliged to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership preservation to F, who is the heir of D.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a prescriptive acquisitor of the instant land, is obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership preservation as the Plaintiff seeking the above F by subrogation.

Judgment

First, with respect to the Plaintiff’s above assertion 1, comprehensively taking account of the health unit, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, and 10-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 13, 14, Gap evidence No. 15-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 16, Gap evidence No. 17-1 through 7, Gap evidence No. 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the witness G testimony, the separate investigation report on the use of private forest land of this case shall be made.