1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s ownership of the B cemetery in Seopopo-si is 76 square meters;

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. The instant land is unregistered land on which C’s land cadastre (hereinafter “instant land cadastre”) was written as of September 10, 1913, on the basis of the fact that it was written on September 10, 1913.

The plaintiff's reference is E, and E's reference is F

(No dispute exists, Gap 1 to 4).2. Determination

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership of this case against the defendant has no interest in confirmation, since it is apparent that the land of this case was subject to D circumstances.

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 only 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.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da45944 Decided November 11, 2010). The land cadastre of this case is written only as D with an address in C, and there is no other indication as to other personal information identifying D.

If so, this constitutes a case where the identity of the registrant is unknown, and thus, the plaintiff has a benefit to request the defendant to confirm the ownership.

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

B. G was the instant land where the instant land was determined on the merits. However, G appears to have no person with the name of F, other than the Plaintiff’s father F, around September 10, 1913 (the result of the inquiry into the office of Ig of this court) in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s assistant F’s lighting employees (including the family number) and around September 10, 1913; (b) it is reasonable to view D and the Plaintiff’s assistant F as the person with the name of F, other than the Plaintiff’s assistant F.

The plaintiff's reference E.