1. It shall be confirmed that the forest B/L is owned by the Plaintiff in the Gu, Si, Gu, Si, and Gu;

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

1. The facts of recognition reveal the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including additional number), and the entire purport of the pleadings, it is recognized that Eul, a mountain-gun C, was found to have undergone an inherited property division agreement with the plaintiff on Nov. 23, 1912 on Nov. 23, 1912 (hereinafter “the instant forest”). D, the plaintiff’s additional father, the legal domicile of which was located, died on July 16, 1930, as the mountain-gun E, and the heir F died on Sept. 23, 1947 and died on Dec. 15, 1987, and the heir’s co-inheritors died on Jul. 24, 2014 with the purport that the plaintiff independently inherited the instant forest.

2. With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is the same person as D and the Plaintiff’s increased protocol, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is the registered titleholder in the forestry register, and seeking confirmation of ownership of the forest of this case against the Defendant, the Defendant’s assertion that there is no benefit to confirm the instant lawsuit.

The 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 it is impossible to identify who is the registered titleholder, and there is a benefit of confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as the State continuously denying the ownership of a third party who is the registered titleholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da57704, Mar. 11, 1994). At present, there is dispute as to who is recorded only in the name on the forest land registry book of this case. In fact, the defendant denies the Plaintiff’s ownership for the above reasons. Thus, the forest of this case, the unregistered forest of this case, is a case where the registered titleholder is unknown on the forest land registry book

Therefore, since the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the defendant, the defendant's main defense of safety cannot be accepted.

Next, considering the validity of the merits of the instant case, it is based on the facts of recognition of pin as to the facts of recognition as Pinin, and on the statement of Gap evidence 7.