1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in paragraph (1) among the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, the claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State regarding the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit is unregistered, and there is a benefit of confirmation in the event of special circumstances, such as the State’s refusal of ownership by a third party who is a registered titleholder, and the State’s continued to assert ownership by denying the ownership of a third party who is a registered titleholder.

According to the above facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da37254, Apr. 26, 2012). According to the above facts, the forest of this case is unregistered real estate, and the name of 36 and the name of 36 persons A in accordance with the statement of evidence No. 1 in the forest register. The reason why no address is indicated is the same as the relevant lot number. The reason is that it is registered as the name of this circumstance. Even if it is not easy to grasp the location and existence of the owner or heir because the address of the person under the circumstance is omitted in the forest register, it does not constitute a case where it is difficult to identify whether the person under the name of the owner or heir is or is the person under the forest register. In addition, the forest of this case is not the case where the defendant, who is the name of the registration, continues to own the "C and 36 persons," and the defendant's lawsuit of this case is not the defendant's interest in confirmation. Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is justified.