2. The defendant shall have the share of 1/2 of B 4,760 square meters prior to Dong-si, Dong-si, Dong-si, D in Dong-si, Dong-si.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The Defendant asserts that the land cadastre of the instant land is not only indicated as the name of registration but also the Plaintiff’s heir D and E as the heir of F, and that it is not when the registrant is either known or known. As to the instant land, the State denies the ownership of the above registered titleholder and did not assert that the land is owned by the State, and thus, there is no benefit in confirmation.

(b) A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State shall have interest in confirmation only in special circumstances, such as where the land is unregistered and its registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or where the registrant is unknown, or where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of registration or enrollment, and the State continues to assert the ownership, etc.

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

According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the land in this case is unregistered and the land land cadastre of this case is indicated F as its owner but there is no specific address or date of birth. Thus, it is reasonable to view that it cannot be proved by the above land cadastre copy that the land in this case is owned by F, which is the decedent of D and E, because such land cadastre alone is difficult to confirm who is its registration titleholder. It is reasonable to view that it cannot be proven by the above land cadastre as being owned by F, which is the decedent of D and E, because the unregistered land in this case was purchased from the owner on the land cadastre and the registration accordingly was not completed.