1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. A factual basis L (Death on September 9, 1979) is adopted by the network M (Death on November 20, 1959) which is the premise of the dispute. The plaintiffs are the successors of the network L, and matters concerning their relationship and inheritance shares are as indicated in the separate list of the plaintiffs' inheritance shares.

경산시 J 하천 89㎡(이하 “이 사건 분할 전 토지”라 한다)는 구 토지대장상 명치44년(明治四十四年, 1911년)

6. The year (the year of major year, the year of 1912) after the assessment of N. 29.

8. The transfer of ownership was registered in MM.

The Gu's land cadastre and land cadastre are written as "O" without a lot number.

The land before the instant partition was unregistered, and was divided into the area of 8 square meters in the J river in Busan-si on September 8, 1993, the area of P river 42 square meters and Q river 39 square meters, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands,” which the Plaintiff sought confirmation of ownership. [The grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including the land number), Party A’s evidence Nos. 13, Party A’s evidence Nos. 14 (including the land number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership of each of the instant land against the Defendant, the State of R, is unlawful as there is no benefit in the confirmation of ownership, since the Defendant received N on the old land’s land cadastre and transferred its ownership to M.

B. 1) A’s claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is benefit of confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as denying the ownership by a third party who is the registered titleholder and continuing to claim state ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633, Oct. 15, 2009).