1. Of the 149 square meters of land for 2/11 square meters of the 149 square meters of the Chungcheongbuk-do F road, the shares of the Plaintiff A, the shares of the 2/11 square meters of the Plaintiff B, the shares of the 1/11 square meters of the Plaintiff C, and

1. Basic facts

A. The Land Survey Book for the Chungcheong G G G 75 square meters (hereinafter “Before subdivision”) states that Nonparty H was examined on July 15, 1912, and H was registered as the first owner in the land cadastre.

According to the above land cadastre, the ownership of the land before subdivision is transferred to the non-party J with the domicile in I on May 5, 1914.

B. After the subdivision, F 45 square meters was divided from the land before the subdivision, and thereafter, F 149 square meters of F road (hereinafter “instant land”) was established following the change of land category and the conversion of the area, etc., and it is currently unregistered.

C. Meanwhile, the above J died on October 10, 1940, and died, and Nonparty K, the next South-North Korea, died on January 22, 1931, and Nonparty L, the next South-North Korea, died on January 22, 1931, and died on September 20, 197.

L’s inheritors include Plaintiff A (Nam), Plaintiff B (Namnam), Plaintiff C (mam), Plaintiff D (mam), Plaintiff E (mam) and M (ma) and N (ma).

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence A, Evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, Evidence Nos. 3 and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court on the defense of this case asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, since the defendant does not dispute that the J and the plaintiffs' evidence assistance is the same person in light of the former land cadastre (Evidence A 1) as to the land of this case.

The claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is not unregistered and the registrant is not known on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, and there are special circumstances, such as the State's refusal of ownership by a third party who is the titleholder of registration or registration, and the State's continued to assert state ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633, Oct. 15, 2009).