beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On July 25, 1912, the former land cadastre concerning the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) unregistered as the basis for fact-finding, C was listed as the ownership preservation on October 29, 1921, and C was dead on June 2, 1927, and on May 12, 1961, C was killed on June 2, 1927. The fact that the family register was cancelled by the permission of ex post facto entry by the Cheongju District Court on May 12, 1961 is not a dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the entries of evidence No. 1, the fact inquiry about E in this court, the result of the fact inquiry about E, and the purport of all pleadings.
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The Plaintiff asserted 1) on January 26, 1972, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she purchased 92 square meters from G, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, H, I, 357 square meters prior to J, and 982 square meters. Each of the above lands including the instant land, including the instant land, were successively transferred from the network F, K, L, and the Plaintiff. Since the instant land was unregistered, and the land in this case was not registered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, the Defendant asserted against the Defendant that the instant land was owned by the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no benefit
B. 1) Determination 1) The claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered and the land is not known to the registrant on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, and there is benefit of confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as denying the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of the registration or the registry, and the State continues to assert state ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817, Jul. 25, 1995). In other words, M is registered on the land cadastre of this case.