1. The plaintiff A's 3/15 shares in the calculation of a square plan for the wife population H 595m and the calculation of a square plan for the wife population I 132m., and the remaining plaintiffs are 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1700 square meters of forests and fields J prior to subdivision (hereinafter “land prior to subdivision”) are stated as being under the circumstances of L having the dwelling in K in the forest research department in the Gan-gun prepared during the Japanese occupation period.

B. The pre-division of land was divided into G, H forest, 595 square meters, N, etc., and the calculation of the square meters of the land 132 meters of the Gan-gun I forest in the Gan-gun Nan Forest was divided.

C. M. M. H. H. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. and M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M

On September 25, 1959, P, a husband and father of the plaintiffs who are family heir, succeeded to the whole property of P, and P, a husband and father of the plaintiff who died on March 5, 1987, the plaintiff A, a wife of P, succeeded to 3/15 shares and 2/15 shares of the remaining plaintiffs who are children, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The land in this case’s interest in confirmation is unregistered, and there is no entry on the land cadastre. In such a case, the claimant of ownership has to file a lawsuit against the State for confirmation of ownership and make registration of ownership preservation. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit in this case has interest in confirmation.

B. According to the facts of recognition of the plaintiffs' ownership of the land in this case, the land prior to the division was originally reverted to L, a situation-based L, and the plaintiffs' prior to the division, taking full account of the following circumstances, such as: L, a situation-based land prior to the division, and the fact-finding on Q, the entire purport of the pleadings, which are acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence and the fact-finding on Q, and the overall purport of the arguments, namely, L, a situation-finding of the land prior to the division, and the plaintiffs' priorO, whose residence is the same, and there is no person with the same name as the plaintiff's prior owner or S, and no other person with