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

A. In the case of permanent residence, the forest land of this case is 11504 square meters and 33719 square meters of D forest land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the forest of this case”), E acquired ownership on February 1, 1923 in the forest land register. The registration number of E in the forest land register is F, and the address is indicated as “G”.

B. The Plaintiffs are the inheritors of H who died on April 12, 1990.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Under the forest land register, E and H, the decedents of the plaintiffs, are the same person, and the plaintiffs seek confirmation against the defendant that the forest land of this case is owned by the plaintiffs.

B. The instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership of the forest of this case against the Defendant is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

Even if the lawsuit of this case is lawful, the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed, since E and H, the decedent of the plaintiffs, cannot be recognized as the same person in the forest land register.

3. Determination

A. As to the defenses before the merits, registration of ownership preservation on the land may be applied to a person registered as the first owner in the land cadastre, forest land cadastre or building register, his/her heir, general successor, a person who proves his/her ownership by a final and conclusive judgment, or a person who proves that ownership was acquired by expropriation (Article 65 of the Registration of Real Estate Act). A claim for confirmation of ownership against the State is unregistered and its land is not yet registered, and it is impossible to identify the title holder or the title holder on the land cadastre or forest land registry, and there is a benefit in confirmation only in special circumstances, such as continuous assertion of ownership by the State while denying ownership by a third

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633 Decided October 15, 2009).