1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The land survey book prepared under the Decree on Land Survey in a certain period of time is indicated as the owner of the network D with respect to the land of 1,339 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and the Plaintiff is a parent of the network M, who is a child of D.

B. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on August 3, 1973 on the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. A person registered as an owner in the Land Survey Book under the former Land Survey Decree shall be presumed to have been treated as a landowner and the circumstance becomes final and conclusive unless there is any counter-proof that the content of the situation has been changed by the adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da13686, Sept. 8, 1998). Since a person under the circumstance acquired the relevant land at the time of original acquisition of the relevant land, if the land survey register was prepared and circumstances were to be assessed against a third party under the former Land Survey Ordinance, he/she or his/her heir shall become the relevant land owner, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the relevant land is disposed of to a third party, and the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership on the land shall be broken if it is proved that there is a separate person under the circumstances, and the registration shall be null and void, unless the registered titleholder specifically asserts and proves that

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Na43417 delivered on May 26, 2005).

Since D, the Plaintiff’s assistance in the land investigation, recognition of the title of the assessment of the land of this case on the land of this case, the registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name on the land of this case is a registration of invalidation of cause because the presumption of ownership is broken.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, instead of performing the duty to cancel the above registration of preservation of ownership, the Defendant, among the land of this case, caused the Plaintiff to recover the title of the Plaintiff.