1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why this Court states this part of the basic facts are the same as the “1. Recognition” of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Since the Plaintiff B and the Plaintiff’s fleet G, the assessment title of the instant assessment land, were the same, the Plaintiff’s fleet G acquired the instant assessment land in original condition, and the Plaintiff, the grandchildren, succeeded in succession to the instant land divided from the instant assessment land.

Therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was completed on the above land, shall be cancelled by the registration of invalidation of cause. Therefore, the plaintiff is seeking the cancellation of the above registration of preservation of ownership as an act of preservation of common property.

B. Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have been divided from the land of this case, and the identity between the land titleholder and the Plaintiff is not recognized. ③ The land of this case is deemed to have already been acquired by J, a third party prior to the farmland distribution under the former Farmland Reform Act after the fact-finding was under the circumstances, and ④ the acquisition by prescription or the acquisition by prescription after the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on the land of this case.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the Plaintiff’s prior G and C are the same person, and in a case where the Plaintiff’s successor to ownership was asserted in the lawsuit by inheritance as a successor to the land owner in the land survey project, the identity of his prior G and the title holder of the situation should be strictly proved, and the judge should not have conviction in such a case. In light of the above legal principles, the instant case should not be inferred without permission, even though there is a circumstance to raise a doubt as to this point (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da45924, Nov. 26, 2009).