2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On February 15, 1946, the area of the land of the 375 square meters (hereinafter “the land before subdivision”) of the Masan-si, the Changwon-si, the Changwon-si (hereinafter “the land before subdivision”) was divided into each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

B. The former land cadastre (No. 1-1) before subdivision, Nonparty E, who has his address in D, was 1913. (Weight 2.)

6. 20. Assessment of the pre-divisiond land and 1921. (No. 10.)

4. On 19.19. F, Nonparty G, who had an address in H, transferred ownership, and Nonparty I, who had an address in H on the same day, transferred ownership.

다. 1976. 10. 4. 작성된 이 사건 각 토지의 토지대장에는 1921. 4. 19. J에 거주하는 I이 이 사건 각 토지의 소유권을 이전받았다고 기재되어 있으며, 원고들의 조부(祖父)인 I의 제적등본(갑 제3호증의 1)에는 본적(本籍)이 ‘H’로 기재되었다가 ‘J’로 정정되었다. 라.

Each land of this case is currently unregistered.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, and the purport of all entries and arguments in Gap's 1 through 3 (including virtual numbers)

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. The key point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s heir registered as the owner in the old land cadastre (No. 1-1-1-), who sought confirmation against the Defendant that the ownership of each of the instant land is against the Plaintiffs in order to complete the registration of preservation of ownership on each of the instant land.

B. A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit of confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as the State's refusal of ownership by a third party who is a registered titleholder, and the State continues to assert state ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da58738 delivered on December 2, 1994). According to the above legal principles and the facts of recognition, prior to the partition of each land of this case.