2. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) Gangwon-gu Seoul Special Self-Governing Province F.

A. The land survey division of approximately 1,704 square meters ( approximately 5,633 square meters, hereinafter “H land before division”) in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, which was made up during the Japanese colonial era, is indicated by I as the owner, and I to ASEAN, and J again donated the above land to K who is the owner.

B. Before subdivision, the land category of H was changed to a river on March 1, 1967. On May 4, 1994, the land category of H was divided into a river, which was divided into a 1,559 square meters of Gangseo-gun, Seogwon-gun, a river of 1,559 square meters, a F river of 926 square meters, a G river of 3

(hereinafter referred to as "land after subdivision" refers only to a lot number. (c)

K completed registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992), with respect to H land on May 11, 1995, and changed the land category on March 9, 201.

On the other hand, F and G land were changed to the land category on January 26, 2007, and the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership as to F land on February 1, 2007, No. 4228 of the receipt of the Chuncheon District Court’s Bupyeong Branch Registry, and No. 4229 of the receipt of the Chuncheon District Court’s receipt of the G land.

E. On January 27, 2010, K died, and the Plaintiff B, C, D, and E, who is the spouse of K, succeeded to the Plaintiff B, C, D, and E’s property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 1, 2, 4 through 9 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for confirmation of ownership

(a) A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder in the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit of confirmation in special circumstances, such as where the State continuously denies the ownership of a third party who is a registered titleholder, and the State continues to assert state ownership, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817, Jul. 25, 1995). Moreover, it is recognized that the lawsuit for confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as a confirmation judgment to eliminate the risks of apprehensions when the Plaintiff’s legal status is at risk.