1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiff's assertion is that the non-party deceased M's children ( grandchildren and grandchildren) and their spouses are successors with inheritance shares, such as written claims of M, and the non-party deceased M argues that according to the entry of the land investigation division in the land investigation division conducted by the shipbuilding General Co., Ltd., the Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation, the Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation of Japanese occupation, and according to the entry of the land investigation division in the land investigation division, the plaintiff asserts to the purport that the defendant should seek confirmation of ownership.

2. Determination

A. Under the legal doctrine, a person, who was assessed as a land owner in a land survey project conducted under the Land Survey Order under a certain order, acquires the ownership of the land in question in an original and creative manner, and the circumstances address the starting point of the land ownership relationship.

In addition, despite the probability that there has been a lot of causes for change in the transaction of land and other legal relations for a long period of time near 100 years since the land assessment, the former part of our society, and other significant social and economic changes, or the trend of use of land, etc., the latter part of the situation may prove that the latter part of the land owner, who was the person under the control of the situation, can easily acquire the land ownership by succession, based on the comprehensive cause of succession to the right.

Considering such circumstances, in a case where a person asserts in a lawsuit that he/she acquired ownership by inheritance as a successor of the title holder of assessment, his/her identity with the title holder and the title holder of assessment should be strictly proved, so that the judge can have convictions as to such fact, and such fact should not be inferred without permission, even though there are circumstances that may raise doubt as to such fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da2388, Jun. 9, 201).

First, according to the records of Gap evidence No. 1 as to whether the situation title holder of each of the lands of this case is the non-party 1, the plaintiffs' prior to the judgment, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of evidence No. 1.