1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff asserted that he succeeded to the ownership of the instant land against the Defendant, which was owned by the network D (D, E, hereinafter “the deceased”). However, according to the Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, it can be recognized that H residing in the Haak-gunF (former Pyeongtaek-gun G) was under the assessment of the instant land during the Japanese occupation period. As long as there is no counter-proof, such as the change of the content of the land by the adjudication, the Plaintiff is presumed to have been under the assessment of the land owner and the circumstance becomes final and conclusive. Since a person who was under the assessment of the land acquires the land at a time (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da13686, Sept. 8, 198), the deceased’s ownership of the instant land was transferred from the above H or his heir, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise the ownership of the instant land.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.