1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, thereby citing this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Additional Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that as to each of the instant land in this case, I did not have any name as its owner on the registry, and that D’s previous land on the old land cadastre restored in 1964 was entered as the owner from X, and Y’s previous H land was transferred from Y to Y. The land cadastre restored before the amendment of the Cadastral Act on December 31, 1975 was entered in the owner column, even if the name was entered in the owner column, it is not recognized as the right presumption. Thus, I cannot be deemed as the legitimate owner who succeeded to the right from the owner of each of the instant land in this case.

A person who is not an owner of land in the Japanese colonial era is registered as an owner in the old land cadastre or the repayment register of distributed farmland.

Even if so, the nominal owner cannot be presumed to be the owner.

However, there is no limitation to using the entries in the former land cadastre or farmland distribution-related documents as data for fact-finding as data for fact-finding on the change of rights, and in cases where not only documents stating matters necessary for repayment such as farmland register, documents confirming farmland subject to distribution, such as farmland register, distribution farmland register, or repayment register, but also documents on compensation, such as written application for compensation, prop statement, land price statement, land price assessment statement, and land price securities, prepared in the course of receiving compensation by a prop purchased from the State, are identical to the owner, such documents can be deemed as a valuable material to recognize the fact that the land ownership was transferred to the nominal owner at least at the time of farmland distribution.

In such cases, the probative value of the above-mentioned material is probative.