1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or according to the evidence No. A, “C” is written as the owner on the land cadastre restored on July 30, 1962 with respect to the instant land, which is unregistered land, and thereafter, there is no change in ownership on the register.

The plaintiff asserts that C is the same person with the plaintiff's name as C, and the owner of the land in this case is the plaintiff.

The evidence No. 3 alone is insufficient to recognize “C” as the owner and the Plaintiff as the same person in the land cadastre, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Even if C and the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, are the same as the same person, the name of the owner is written on the old land cadastre which the competent authority arbitrarily restored for the convenience of taxation without any legal basis before the enforcement of the Cadastral Act wholly amended by Act No. 2801 on December 31, 1975.

Even if there is no presumption of right in the statement.

(2) Article 107 of the Local Tax Act provides that a person liable to pay a property tax shall be deemed to have paid the property tax on the instant land, even though the Plaintiff is deemed to have paid the property tax on the instant land according to the evidence Nos. 16493, Aug. 22, 1995 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da16493, Aug. 2, 195)

In full view of the above, it is insufficient to recognize the land of this case as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.