1. The part of the plaintiff's main claim to confirm ownership shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff Pyeongtaek-si B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land assessment relationship (1) C was assessed at least 104 square meters prior to the Authenticity-gun (hereinafter “instant assessment land”).

(2) The instant assessment land became 344 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant land”) through the change of the name of the administrative district and conversion of the area unit.

(3) The land cadastre of the instant land is written as its owner D.

B. The Plaintiff’s inheritance relationship (1) F, whose principal purpose is Gyeonggi-do Pyeongtaek-gun E, died on May 1, 1951 (short-term 4284), and D, his/her principal, South-North, succeeded to Australia inheritance.

(2) On May 7, 1996, D died, and his heir had children G, H, I, the Plaintiff, J, and K.

(3) On July 16, 2016, G (Death around 2010), a heir of wife L, children M, N,O, and Plaintiff, H, I, J, and K agreed on the division of inherited property with the purport that “the instant land is owned by the Plaintiff solely in the inheritance commenced due to D’s death.”

C. On July 13, 2007, the Defendant: (a) announced without real estate on the instant land to P; and (b) completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land as the receipt of Suwon District Court Sejong District Court KRW 61484, Dec. 17, 2008.

(hereinafter referred to as the “registration of initial ownership”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 15, 38, and 39, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Among the main claims in this case, the claim for confirmation of ownership against the country of determination as to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation of ownership was unregistered, and there is no land in the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre and the identity of the registrant is unknown, and there is a benefit in confirmation in special circumstances, such as where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the registered titleholder and continues to claim state ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649 delivered on September 15, 1995, etc.). In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, confirmation is made as a requirement for protection of rights.