1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The key issue of this case is whether S and the plaintiffs' pre-stigator T, the circumstances indicated in the land research register of the real estate listed in the annexed Table 1 list, are the same person. The reason why the court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant added the contents: (a) as to the land No. 1 in the annexed Table 1 (hereinafter “No. 1”) written on the old land cadastre, the Plaintiff, the heir of T, is not entitled to seek cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership on the land No. 1; (b) according to the current land cadastre (A. 17), the area of the land No. 1 is 21 square meters (up to approximately 67 square meters if converted into a square), the area of the land No. 5 is 23 square meters (up to 7 square meters if converted into a square), and the area of the land No. 5 is 12 square meters (up to 7 square meters), and according to the restoration drawing and the cadastral mountain government (up to 5 and 6) on Feb. 7, 1954, the land whose lot number is No. 1, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership on the land is unlawful.

First of all, as to the argument, the plaintiffs were destroyed by the 625 War and the 605 War. The plaintiffs were the deceased TW's grandchildren and Australia's successors, who are the legitimate inheritors under the former common law, and the register and the cadastral record on the land 1 were all destroyed by the 625 War.