1. Defendant Korea’s attached list “Defendant” shall be attached to each Defendants listed in the attached list, among the 985 square meters in Daegu Northern-gu Y-gu.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 30, 1912, Daegu Northern-gu Y-gu Y85㎡ (hereinafter “instant land”) was the land under the name of the network, and the registration of ownership was not completed. The owner’s column for land cadastre is only indicated as “Z” and “AAdong” in the address column, but is not indicated as “Adong”.

B. The Plaintiff had cultivated the land in this case since the mid-1940s, and thereafter, the Plaintiff occupied the land in this case through AC and AD, the heir of the network AB.

C. The remaining Defendants, except the Defendant Republic of Korea, inherited each of the pertinent shares in inheritance indicated in the “share in inheritance” column in the separate sheet among the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense prior to the merits

A. In the instant case, it cannot be deemed that the registrant on the land cadastre cannot be seen as unclear, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation against Defendant Republic of Korea.

B. (1) The claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is not unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder in the land cadastre or forest land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is benefit in confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as the State’s refusal of ownership by a third party who is the registered titleholder, and there is no benefit in confirmation.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to ownership of the instant land and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to ownership of the instant land and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Prior to the determination of the merits, the judgment is based on the foregoing.