1. The defendant is based on the restoration of the true name with respect to B 354 square meters in Seosan-si to the plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 3-1 to 6, 5, 7, 9-1, 2, and 10.

The registration of transfer of ownership was completed on March 20, 1944 for C (C, address, and B) as the receipt No. 5497 on August 31, 194 with respect to the land B, B, 354 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the registration of transfer of this case”) on the land of this case as of December 26, 1995, No. 31821, which was received on December 26, 1995, for the reason of reversion of rights.

C. The legal domicile of the Plaintiff’s father-D was “Seosan E,” the neighboring land of this case.

D On January 20, 1983, D shall be deceased at the above permanent domicile, and the spouse F shall also die on December 10, 1984, and eventually the plaintiff shall be the only heir D.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff’s father D (one name “C”), the Defendant, by misunderstanding “C” as Japan, deemed that the land of this case is owned by the Defendant pursuant to the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging, and completed the instant transfer registration, the cause of the instant transfer registration is null and void. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for the transfer registration on the land of this case to the Plaintiff, who is the deceased D’s heir, based on the

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The “C”, the owner of the land of this case, on the registry, is different from the Plaintiff’s father D and name (if the name was changed in one form, the original name and the changed name were stated on the copy of the original document, but in the case of D, it is difficult to believe that the report presented by the Plaintiff is a sufficient report.

) The address is not the same as the permanent domicile of D, and thus, the “C” and “D” cannot be regarded as the same person. 2) The instant land is owned by the owner on the register.