The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are in the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The owner column of the old land ledger (A 13, and C 3 pages) restored on May 1, 1955, as stated in attached Table 1 No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “real estate No. 1”) is written only as K.

2) The Resident Registration Act was enforced on June 20, 1962.

On May 1, 1955, the name or name of the reason for the change in resident registration number or name of the date of change, and the ownership column of the old land ledger (A 13, 1st page) prepared on November 9, 1976, entered as follows:

4) No property tax has been imposed on real estate No. 1.

B. The owner column of the old forest ledger (A6-2 and 3 pages) restored on May 1, 1955, which was recorded in attached Table 1 No. 2, the real estate listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “Attachment 2”) No. 1, the owner column of the Gu forest ledger restored on May 1, 1955 is described only as “L religious community.”

2) The ownership column in the old forest ledger (A6-2, one side) drafted on November 25, 1976 is indicated as follows:

On May 1, 1955, the name or name of the cause of change in the resident registration number, or the cause of change in the address of the changed date, and the property tax of the second real estate was paid from 1996 to 2020 (in the case of the relocation of 1996, no data preserved is available to know the details of taxation and the father, etc.). The above clan is the real owner of the second real estate, and the plaintiff is the title trustee, and the second real estate was managed on behalf of the plaintiff.

The argument is asserted.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 13, and 21 (including branch numbers), and the result of factual inquiries into the head of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The real estate portion No. 1 is owned by the original network “D,” and the old land ledger is indicated as K, a prestigious name in the former land ledger.

In light of the fact that the resident registration number (M) of the owner of the old land is F of “D”, “D” and “K” can be seen as the same person.

The Plaintiff purchased the real estate from D in 1970 and cultivated it up to the present day. As such, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned real estate is “D.”