소유권이전등기 등
1. Defendant Republic of Korea confirms that it is the ownership of Sinsan City, Sinsan 4,182 square meters of Silg (AH and Sinsan Sinsan Industrial Complex).
2. Defendant D, F.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 25, 1911, the land cadastre, which is unregistered land (hereinafter “instant land”), indicated that AK had an address in the Gyeongbuk-gun AJdong, Chungcheongnam-do on November 25, 1911, and according to the above land cadastre, the ownership transfer registration was made to AL on November 16, 1912, and the ownership transfer registration was made to AM on November 16, 1914.
B. The legal domicile of the Plaintiff, who is the additional father, is “Seoul-do Gyeongsan-gun,” and the Plaintiff died on September 4, 1914.
On November 26, 1964, AG, the head of Cho-ro, N, had succeeded to the inheritance of Australia, and died at the permanent domicile above.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 24-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Part of the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the instant land was unregistered; and (b) it was written in its land cadastre with “AJdong AM” alone when the registrant cannot be identified; (c) thus, Defendant Republic of Korea has a benefit in seeking confirmation against the Plaintiff’s title holder; (d) Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion has a benefit in seeking confirmation against the Defendant Republic of Korea only when the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land became a public figure or its land cadastre was lost; and (e) the Defendant, the State, denies the ownership of a third party as the registered titleholder and asserts that the State is the State, while denying ownership. The Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of ownership was made against the State. The land cadastre of this case was registered as a ownership transfer on November 16, 1914, and the Defendant, the State, did not dispute the ownership ownership transfer on the land cadastre of this case, and thus, there was no benefit in seeking confirmation against the Defendant, and there was no benefit in deeming that AM and the decedent of the Plaintiff, the decedent registered as the owner of the instant land.
B. Determination 1.