1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese occupation period, C shall set up two years (1913) in Japan with respect to the land of approximately 385 square meters (hereinafter “instant assessment land”).

6.11. It is written as being circumstances, and its address is official column.

B. On October 28, 1964, the assessment land in the instant case was restored by cadastral records, and became the land stated in the purport of the claim through the unit conversion, administrative district reorganization, and change of name (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On October 13, 1995, the defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership of the land of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff, the title holder of the plaintiff's assertion, C, the father of the plaintiff, was the same as the father of the plaintiff, and Eul and the mother of the plaintiff died and became the only inheritor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was originally acquired by the plaintiff, and that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was broken down.

B. In a case where the plaintiff asserts that his ownership was acquired by inheritance as a successor of the title holder of the assessment situation, his identity as the title holder and the title holder of the assessment must be proved strictly, so that the judge can have convictions in this regard, and it cannot be inferred without permission, even though there are circumstances to raise a doubt as to this point (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da45924, Nov. 26, 2009). First, according to the health stand and evidence No. 4-1 to No. 4, the above title holder C and the plaintiff's title holder, who is the title holder, are different from the plaintiff's title holder F, and the plaintiff's title holder, who is the title holder of the plaintiff's title holder, was the domicile of G and C, the domicile of the title holder of the situation, the domicile of the plaintiff's title F, and in light of the fact that the plaintiff's title holder was not the same with that of H, the domicile of the title holder of the assessment.