1. It is confirmed that the previous 2036 square meters is owned by the Plaintiff in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongbuk-gun;

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The current status of indication on the public record of the instant land 1) 2036 square meters prior to Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On September 10, 1912, D’s address address “T” was determined on September 10, 1912, and the registration of ownership preservation was made on August 30, 1919, and E’s transfer of ownership from D on September 8, 1919, respectively. (2) The instant land is currently unregistered, and the owner’s address and land cadastre as of the old land cadastre and as of the land cadastre of this case is indicated as “CF”.

B. The Plaintiff’s inheritance relationship 1) The Defendant died on April 7, 1943, and H, who was the ex post facto mother G (Death, November 4, 1929) of the Republic of South and North Korea, died of Australia, and H died on February 13, 1961. 2) On April 10, 201, the Plaintiff, the heir of the network H, I, J, K, K, L, M, N,O, P, P, and Q agreed on the division of inherited property with the purport that the Plaintiff solely succeeds to the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 through 17 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion that D's land cadastre of this case does not constitute a case where there is no registered titleholder or who is unknown because D's land cadastre of this case's land name is written, and further, the defendant denies the ownership of the above registered titleholder and does not assert that it is the defendant's ownership. Thus, the lawsuit of this case does not

B. A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit of confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as the State's refusal of ownership by a third party who is a registered titleholder, and the State continues to assert state ownership.

Supreme Court Decision 194 delivered on December 1, 1994