1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant B, C, D, E, and F all.

1. Basic facts

A. The instant land is currently unregistered, as the instant land was assessed on June 20, 1922 by the Defendant’s heir H (H and I)’s husband, and the Defendant’s heir had not been registered.

B. The Plaintiff is the owner of land J/K located in the vicinity of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] A 3-1, 2, 15-1, 2, 3 of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 15-1, 2, and 3 of this Court, the fact inquiry result of the L/C of this Court, the purport of the whole

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Since the main land cadastre of Defendant Republic of Korea is indicated as M in the former land cadastre of this case’s main land cadastre, there is no benefit for the Plaintiff to seek confirmation of land ownership against Defendant Republic of Korea.

B. A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is not unregistered and is not known to the registrant on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre or forest land cadastre, and there is a benefit in confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as continuous assertion of state ownership while the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of registration or registration.

(3) In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff did not have any interest in seeking the confirmation of ownership by subrogation of the Defendant’s heir against the instant land, i.e., the land of this case, which is recognized by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, and the following circumstances: (a) the land of this case is indicated in the Land Survey Book and the former Land Conservation Book as being subject to the status of M with IG address; (b) H, the Defendant’s heir, had the permanent domicile in the Incheon Reinforcement; (c) the Chinese heir was the same; (c) whether the “M” of the Land Survey Division and the Defendant’s heir were the same; and (c) there is no particular dispute between the Plaintiff and the Republic of Korea as to whether the “H” is the same person; and (c) the Defendant’s Republic of Korea does not dispute the land of this case as the State-owned land.

(c).