1. (1) The Plaintiff’s ownership shall be based on the 602 square meters and the Defendant’s ownership of the Masan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City E.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. Each land emitted from paragraph (1) of the disposition of basic facts without dispute between the parties (hereinafter for convenience, “Plaintiff-owned land” shall be deemed as “Plaintiff-owned land,” and “Plaintiff-Owned land” shall be deemed as “Plaintiff-owned land,” and “Plaintiff-owned land,” respectively (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiff-owned land”).

(4) The term “the remaining forest owned by the Defendant,” which is divided into the G forest and field 6,050 square meters,” is the land subject to registration conversion immediately after it was divided into the I (forest) Special Self-Governing Province in North Korea before the original administrative district was changed, and the developments leading up to the division or registration conversion, such as the present, are as set out below.

The circumstances leading up to the division, registration conversion, etc. of the land subject to the confirmation of boundary (the location: the “former JJdong”) of the Defendant, owned by the 83 G M 83 M Y (the division in March 1965) G 73 G Y G 12 K Y 12 G Y 1,23 square meters prior to F 1,23 square meters prior to the division of the land subject to the confirmation of boundary (the registration conversion in October 1970) (the registration conversion in October 1965) and owned by the Defendant, the 40 M 1,23 square meters of land owned by the Defendant (the registration conversion in March 3, 1965) L 4 square meters of land owned by the 354 square meters prior to H 354 square meters (the division in March 3, 1965) and the 602 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff 602 square meters prior to the registration conversion in March 1965).

B. (1) In a situation where the boundary line between the plaintiffs and the defendant is apparent where the boundary line of each land owned by them is located, the plaintiffs sought the boundary confirmation by the lawsuit in this case. As to the plaintiffs' respective cadastral map restoration activities as to the land owned by the plaintiffs as at the present registry are all unlawful, so long as the land owned by the plaintiffs does not exist or can not be specified, the plaintiffs cannot be viewed as the legitimate owner of the land owned by the plaintiffs, so the lawsuit for the confirmation of boundary filed by the plaintiffs is all unlawful.

(2) but.