1. It is confirmed that each of the lands listed in the separate sheet 9/20 shares is owned by the plaintiff;

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The former land cadastre of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the lands of this case”) indicated in the separate sheet as “D” with the address of “Bri” (currently, “Brisi,” in the administrative district) was the assessment of each of the above lands on August 18, 1913, and each of the above lands is currently unregistered.

B. Meanwhile, the E-friendly F entered his name in the post facto list of G, who is a son of E, and subsequently married with H, and divided his child into I, J, K, and L, who is a son and son of H. The F died on December 12, 1984, and H died on September 191.

Accordingly, the plaintiff inherited 9/20 of F's inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In full view of the written evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the purport of the entire argument as a whole, F, as the Plaintiff’s son, shall be deemed to have succeeded to the entry of E in accordance with the customary customs at the time and to the ex post facto adoption of D, a titleholder of the circumstances of each land of this case. As such, each land of this case was inherited to the above F, and the ownership of 9/20 among them was succeeded to the Plaintiff, and as long as the Defendant is dissatisfied with this, the Plaintiff’s benefit to seek the confirmation is also recognized.

B. The Defendant invoked Supreme Court Decision 201Da56972, Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Na109459, etc., and asserts to the effect that G’s multiple copies are written as “D” and this is different from “D” which is the name of assessment, and thus, F’s two copies and the name of assessment cannot be deemed as the same person.

However, the above cases relate to a matter on which the name of the person in whose name was written in the old land cadastre was written differently from the name of the person in whose name was written in the plaintiff in the above case, which was written differently from the former land cadastre. In this case, only a copy of F, other than the former land cadastre, appears to have been written in writing as " "," and the other land cadastre.