1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. Claim for the confirmation of ownership, including the part extended to the trial of the instant lawsuit.

1. Basic facts ① O land in Chungcheongnam-si was assessed on February 28, 1914 by E, which was located in D.

O Land was divided into P and F land on December 15, 1918, and P land was completed in the name of Q as of November 16, 1921.

F Land (referring to the land in this case whose lot number has been changed to B) was written D as the owner in the old land cadastre, and the land category was changed from the paddy on December 15, 1918, which was divided from O land, to the road.

② On June 16, 1932, C, which had been living in G, died in Chungcheongnam-si, and Q, a South-North Q, who had lived in G, succeeded to Australia alone.

Q died on February 7, 1966 and succeeded jointly to R and S, his spouse, and R died on November 23, 1987 and succeeded to by S.

S A dead on August 12, 1993, and his spouse succeeded jointly to the 3/11 shares of inheritance, U, appointed parties I, H, and J respectively in the 2/11 shares of inheritance.

U was deceased on August 29, 1998, and the spouse was jointly inherited in proportion to 3/11 shares, KS, L, N, and M, respectively.

③ On May 17, 1993, the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the instant land (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership”) on May 17, 1993 following the procedures for public announcement of unregistered real estate under the statutes related to State property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 5 through 10 evidence (including all types of proof), Eul 1 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Main safety defenses;

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of ownership in the instant case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. The claim for the confirmation of land ownership against the State in the relevant legal doctrine is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder in 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 where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is a registered titleholder, and the State continues to claim state ownership

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649 delivered on September 15, 1995, etc.).