1. The defendant shall attach a net C (C and a certified copy address: Kimcheon-si D)'s heir with the size of 20,231 square meters of B forest land in Kimcheon-si.

1. Basic facts

A. In the forest survey report and the forest register of 20,231 square meters of forest land B in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, the unregistered land (hereinafter “instant land”), E is indicated as having received the assessment on October 28, 1917.

B.F purchased the instant land from G and H on December 11, 1976.

C. The Plaintiff was donated the instant land from F on September 27, 1991 and is currently in possession until now.

C(C and d. Kimcheon-si) died on December 10, 1967, and each heir listed in the separate sheet was finally owned in the corresponding share ratio through the heir.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that there is no interest in the plaintiff to seek confirmation of ownership of the land of this case.

A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit of confirmation in special circumstances, such as the State continuously denies the ownership of a third party who is a registered titleholder, and the State continues to assert ownership.

In light of Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649, Sept. 15, 1995) and Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, if it cannot be proved by a certified copy of land cadastre or a certified copy of the forestry register that the ownership of the real estate is the owner, registration of preservation of ownership shall be conducted

(See Supreme Court Decisions 99Da34390 delivered on July 10, 2001, 93Da5727, 5734 delivered on April 27, 1993, etc.). The land in this case is unregistered. The owner in the forest land register and the Plaintiff’s assertion as the owner of the land in this case are the same person, but it is difficult to find whether it is the same person as the Plaintiff did not indicate the address of the owner in the forest land register.

Therefore, it is true.