A. Each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) is an unregistered real estate; the land cadastre includes “CD” as its owner; the land cadastre includes “CD” as its owner; the ground for acquisition refers to the circumstances on May 20, 1918; and the former land cadastre states “CD” as its owner.

B. On December 31, 1975, the Plaintiffs were the deceased E’s bereaved family members, and the network E was the deceased’s domicile and domicile at the time of death, and the deceased’s bereaved family members were the deceased’s heir L, Plaintiff A, L, and M, who died on March 2, 1995, and the deceased’s heir who died on March 2, 1995. On June 3, 2016, the said heir agreed to divide the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the [Attachment List No. 2 and paragraph (3) of the [Attachment] as the Plaintiff’s property owned by the Plaintiff L, and the real estate listed in paragraphs (1) of the [Attachment List No. 2 and (3) of the [Attachment] as the Plaintiff’s inherited property owned by the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant division agreement”).

C. There is no person who has the name "D" in the voice C of the Chungcheongnam-do around 1918 and has resided therein.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), each fact-finding with respect to the head of the voice Eup in the Chungcheongnam-gun, and the head of the Chungcheongnam-gun in the Chungcheongnam-gun in the Chungcheong-gun in the Chungcheong-gun, the whole purport of the arguments, as a whole.

2. According to the above findings of determination, it is reasonable to view that D as the owner of each real estate in this case’s land cadastre and the former land cadastre as the same person as E, the decedent, and as at the time of entering the owner in the former land cadastre. In this case, there is a clerical error in the owner indication as indicated in the land cadastre, and in this case, it is difficult to specify the owner. Since the defendant denies that he is the same person as the owner listed in the network E and the land cadastre of this case, he has the interest to seek confirmation of ownership against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da34390, Jul. 10, 201).