1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land in this case was unregistered real estate and the owner’s column for the land cadastre restored around 1959 was registered as the owner. The land in this case was registered as the owner of the land cadastre restored around 1959.

B. According to the former Land Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 2 of August 13, 1912), the “F” in which the address column is a blank space is indicated as being examined.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 (including paper numbers), Eul 1, Eul 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that this case’s land was assessed by G, the Plaintiff’s fleet, and the Plaintiff succeeded to it, thus seeking confirmation of the Plaintiff’s ownership.

B. The title holder of the land under the former Land Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912, 1912) acquired the pertinent land at the time of original acquisition, and if the land survey division was established and circumstances were made to the group under the former Land Survey Ordinance, he/she or his/her heir becomes the title holder or his/her heir (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43417, May 26, 2005). According to the guidelines established at the time of preparation of the land survey division, according to the above facts of recognition, when the location of the land and the owner’s domicile are identical, the land survey division is the blank-gun’s address column (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2327, Jul. 27, 1982). Accordingly, the land survey division is indicated as having a blank-gun address.

Therefore, according to each description of F, A2, B, and B-2 as to whether the Plaintiff’s fleet G is the same person as F, the name of the above circumstances, as the owner, F was considered as the owner in relation to the first time before Gangnam-gun I adjacent to the land of this case.