1. The plaintiffs own a 307 square meter and a 869 square meter in the attached Form, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, according to the share ratio.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 18, 1915, J was found to have assessment of the above land on the land cadastre of 307 square meters in the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, on March 18, 1915, and the J separately stated that the said land was assessed on June 18, 1915 on the land cadastre of 869 square meters in the I cemetery, but the address and resident registration number of J is not indicated.

(hereinafter the above two lands collectively referred to as “instant real estate”). B

The J died on December 2, 1923 and succeeded to the property of the J as shown in the separate sheet by the plaintiffs.

C. L, the father of J, the child of K and J, and the legal domicile of the plaintiff A is M, the same as the real estate of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs have no interest in claiming ownership confirmation of the real estate of this case against the defendant.

(b) A claim for confirmation of ownership of land against the State shall be limited to the cases where such land is unregistered and its registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or where there are special circumstances, such as where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of registration or enrollment, and the State continues to assert the ownership of the State;

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817 delivered on July 25, 1995). Since the instant real estate is unregistered land, and the land cadastre does not indicate the address or resident registration number of J, which is a registered titleholder, and thus the identity of the registered titleholder cannot be known, the Plaintiffs have interest in claiming against the Defendant for confirmation of ownership of the said real estate.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

3. In full view of the facts of recognition and the purport of the entire arguments as to the merits of this case, it is recognized that the real estate of this case is owned by J, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, and currently, it is owned by the plaintiffs according to the inheritance share ratio stated in the

4. Conclusion.