2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims each.

A. On July 30, 1919, which is the Plaintiffs’ increased portion of L, the Japanese colonial rule, was determined by the Forestry Investigation Ordinance that was 17-2 parts of Ma forest land in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).

B. After doing so, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on the land before the instant partition as the receipt No. 2417 of August 3, 1960 by the Suwon District Court, Sung-nam Branch of Gwangju District Court.

C. On February 25, 1970, the land before the instant partition was divided into each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”). With respect to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 among them, each registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name was completed on October 22, 1970; October 26, 197; October 18, 197; June 18, 1997; each registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name was completed on February 21, 198; as to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, N on October 22, 1970; and as to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, each registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name was completed on January 19, 1971.

On the other hand, L has died on April 20, 1921, and on the other hand, the head of Yong-Nam succeeded to L's property solely, and on January 24, 1984, S died, and T and A jointly succeeded to the property of S.

T A deceased on April 1, 1997 and jointly succeeded to the property of the Plaintiff H, I, J, and K, which are their children. On February 13, 2013, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff C, D, E, F, and G, who are their wife, jointly succeeded to the property of the Plaintiff C, D, E, F, and G, and subsequently taken over the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 13 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), results of fact inquiry about Gwangju Registry and U-Eup, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the part of the plaintiffs' lawsuit regarding the main safety defense regarding the claim for confirmation of ownership is unlawful because the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of ownership has no interest in confirmation.

It is most fundamental to resolve the dispute, which is the plaintiff's right or legal status in a lawsuit for confirmation.