beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.
2. All of the plaintiffs' respective conjunctive claims.
Reasons
In fact, on May 1, 1955, the land cadastre of the 2,396 square meters prior to the Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “instant land”) was restored on May 1, 195, the land cadastre of the 2,396 square meters prior to the change of the administrative area (hereinafter “the instant land”). The restored land cadastre is written by O as the owner.
The land in this case is unregistered until now.
In the cadastral map drawn up in the 1913th (2 years in 1913) and the closed cadastral map after the restoration, the land of this case does not appear, and only the land of this case (hereinafter “the land before the division”) appears in the Chungcheongnam-gun Pream (hereinafter “the land before the division”). The land before the division of this case on the cadastral map is written by Q.
[Ground of recognition] The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that "this case's land is owned by the plaintiffs' prior owner, and therefore, the plaintiffs who are the successors of O seek confirmation of ownership against the defendant."
The object of the rights or legal relations between the parties in a civil lawsuit shall be specified. If the subject matter of a lawsuit is not specified, the court does not specify the subject matter of the lawsuit and the scope of the effect of the judgment. Thus, whether the subject matter of a lawsuit for confirmation of land ownership is specified or not belongs to the requirements of the court's ex officio examination.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da87641 Decided March 10, 201, etc.). According to the above facts, the boundary, location, etc. of the pertinent land cannot be confirmed because the instant land did not appear on the cadastral map and the closed cadastral map, and the Plaintiffs do not specify it, and there is no other evidence to specify the instant land. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ primary and primary hearing part in the lawsuit is unlawful as it does not specify the subject matter of lawsuit.
Judgment on the ancillary claim.