1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The land survey division concerning the instant B land (Yancheon-gun B grave site 140 square meters) is the land survey division consisting of E who has a domicile in Docheon-gun, and F with a domicile in Docheon-gun, and F with a domicile in Do Ri as the land survey division concerning the instant land (Yancheon-gun C, 523 square meters), respectively, is written as the land survey division on D.

B. As to each land of this case, registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the defendant, as stated in the purport of claim.

[Evidence] Each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 1 and 2

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is null and void, since the circumstances that originally acquired each of the lands of this case are different.

B. E, the title of the instant land assessment, died on March 5, 1920, and died on October 7, 1918, in the status of unmarried F, his/her son F, who died first, and thus, his/her father and his/her son were succeeded to all his/her property.

C. G and his/her offspring’s children were all dead on May 25, 1950 during the Korean War and before that date.

G The Plaintiff, as his head of Australia and the heir of property, succeeded to G, but died on September 20, 1950, sought the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant for each land of this case, as a preservation act for at least the common property as the head of family and the heir of property.

3. Determination

A. In light of the results of fact-finding with respect to the J chief, it is difficult to completely eliminate the possibility of existence of the name, and to readily conclude that the name of each land in this case and the Plaintiff’s preference are the same person.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion is premised on G’s sole inheritance of each land of this case even by the same person, and this is again premised on F’s premise that the principle of “mal net pay”, which is a custom under the former Civil Act, is applied to F’s death as a family head and unmarried as a family head (or without a male). The difference between the content indicated in No. 3 (S.) and No. 4 (No. 1) and the content indicated in No. 3 (No. 5).