1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s ownership of the 670 square meters and C 2885 square meters in Gwangju Mine-gu.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A (A and address: D) shall be deemed to have completed the registration of ownership transfer in October of the same year due to the completion of repayment on February 5, 1962, on each registry concerning the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land by aggregating two parcels”) of Gwangju Mine-gu B 670 square meters and C 2885 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff’s Chinese name is A.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion does not dispute the facts that the land in this case is owned by A, the nominal owner on the registry, and therefore, the plaintiff's filing a lawsuit against the defendant does not have the benefit of confirmation.

B. A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is not a land cadastre and is not a registered titleholder on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or it is not known who the registered titleholder is, and there is a benefit of confirmation only 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 assert the ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da58738 delivered on December 2, 1994). In light of the fact that the Defendant denies the fact that the Plaintiff is identical to A, the nominal owner of the instant land, and the Plaintiff on the registry of the instant land, thereby disputing whether the said land is owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has an interest in seeking confirmation of ownership of the said land against the Defendant.

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

3. In full view of the judgment on the merits, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9, the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding results, and the purport of the entire arguments with respect to the mine administration of this court, the plaintiff's mother resided in "Mining-gun F" in the 1960s, the plaintiff paid the property tax on the land of this case from around 1962 (from late 2005 to late 2005), and the fact that the plaintiff was receiving a rent by leasing the land of this case from around 201.