1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiffs are co-owned with 1/2 shares of each of the 2,337 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts D sold on May 15, 1921 to F on the assessment of 864 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the land before subdivision”) before Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 26, 1921 to F on the same day.

The land before subdivision was divided into G land on June 30, 1926 and C previous 2,337 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The land of this case is indicated as the transfer of ownership to H on July 10, 1937, and to I (I and the J of the Chungcheongnam-gun of the Chungcheongnam-do) on February 6, 1950, respectively.

The deceased, the father of the plaintiffs, the father of the deceased, is J. Dog, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongbuk-gun, and the deceased on April 4, 2012, his heir agreed on the division of inherited property on October 31, 2012 to share the land of this case in proportion to the shares of each 1/2 of the plaintiffs.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the defense prior to the merits entered a divisional registration on June 21, 1937 with the purport that the land of this case was divided from the land before the subdivision on June 21, 1937, the competent registry office asserts that there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State since the land of this case cannot be deemed as unregistered land on the ground that the pertinent registry office is unable to find the registry of the land of this case, but it cannot be readily concluded that the land of this case is not unregistered land. Furthermore, if the competent registry office cannot find the registry of the land of this case, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State on the unregistered land.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. As seen in the judgment on the merits, as seen earlier, I’s permanent domicile and land cadastre, the father of the plaintiffs, coincide with I’s land owner, who is the owner of the instant land, and its Chinese name is the same, and the deceased I, the father of the plaintiffs, shall be entitled to property tax, etc. on the instant land until he dies.