1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2.

1. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the corresponding part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the land survey project conducted under the Decree on Land Survey in the Japanese colonial Rule and Japanese Occupation Period, a person who is considered a landowner shall acquire the ownership of the land in question from an original and creative perspective, and the situation deals with the starting point of the land ownership relationship.

In addition, 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, and between them, other significant social and economic changes, or the trend of use of land, etc., the descendants of the person under the circumstance may prove, once by the comprehensive cause of succession of the right, the acquisition by succession of the land ownership in which the person under the circumstance was the person under the circumstance, based on the

In light of such circumstances, in a case where a person asserts that he/she succeeded to ownership by inheritance as a successor of the title holder of the circumstance, his/her identity and the title holder of the situation must be strictly proved, so that he/she can have convictions as to such fact, and it should not be inferred without permission, even though he/she was able to bring an doubt as to such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da56972, Nov. 24, 201). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in light of the identity of the Plaintiff’s lighting E and the network, the title holder of the instant land and the Plaintiff’s lighting E are the same person, first of all, the full purport of the entries and arguments as indicated in subparagraphs 1 through 11 as well as the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and arguments as to whether the land of this case are the same person.