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

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is unregistered land, and each land cadastre is first registered as the ownership on August 15, 1932 by C with an address in the “Sajin-gun” (not indicated in any number).

(after that, the transfer of ownership was not registered on the register). (b)

D, the plaintiff's increased father, was residing in Chungcheongnam-gun E around that time.

In addition, there is no evidence that the circumstances such as the plaintiff's certificate and name and the other person's residence could be seen as the same as the plaintiff's certificate and name are revealed.

C. On April 19, 1947, D, the Plaintiff, died, and F, the Plaintiff’s father, succeeded to D’s property.

After F died on December 4, 1969, the inheritors, including the Plaintiff, entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property with the content that the instant real estate was owned solely by the Plaintiff on June 28, 2019.

As in the instant real estate, H forest land of 15,174 square meters divided from Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, G, is registered as an owner under the name of the owner in the Sinjin-gun, Jin-gun, Jin-gun, which has an address in the “Yin-gun,” and F, the Plaintiff’s father, completed the registration of preservation of ownership on February 26, 196.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 15, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, C registered as the first owner on the land cadastre of the instant real estate is the same person as D, who is the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the sole owner of the instant real estate following an agreement on division of inherited property.

Furthermore, since the address of the title holder of registration is omitted in the land cadastre of the instant unregistered real estate and the land cadastre alone cannot be identified as the owner, and the Defendant cannot identify the title holder of the instant land and contests the Plaintiff’s ownership, there is a benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da34390 delivered on July 10, 2001.