The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 15, 1914, the land research division prepared by the Japanese governor of the Japanese Government on May 15, 1914 under the shipbuilding Decree, which was enforced during the Japanese occupation period, stated that D was under the assessment of 479 square meters (the name and land category of the administrative district are changed to 1,583 square meters of land in Sincheon-si B forest as of May 12, 1914; hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The defendant completed the registration of the preservation of ownership on August 6, 1996 on the land of this case.

(c)

The Plaintiff’s protocol is the same E with the name and title of the land in this case.

On May 22, 1934, the plaintiff's assistance division Eul died, and the plaintiff et al. inherited the property as the heir of Australia by the F, who was the child of E, and the F, died on May 14, 1987, the plaintiff et al. inherited the property.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 2-5, Gap evidence No. 2-5, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the land acquired at the time as the Plaintiff’s father, E, a father, acquired as the land under the circumstances, and thus, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant is not presumed to have no capacity

Since the plaintiff succeeded to the land of this case through father F, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancellation of preservation of the land of this case.

B. Determination 1) In a case where a person asserts that his ownership was acquired by inheritance as a successor in the name of the person under the circumstances, his identity and identity of the person under the name of the person under the circumstances should be strictly proved, and the judge shall be able to have conviction in such fact, and it shall not be inferred without permission, even though there are circumstances leading to doubt as to such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da45924, Nov. 26, 2009). 2) The name of the person under the name of the land of this case and the name of the plaintiff’s assistant are the same in Korean and Chinese characters.

However, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the first instance court and this court.