1.The real estate listed in the Schedule between Defendant A and the Defendant is owned by the Defendant.

2.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by service based on which recognition is applicable (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

(a) A claim for confirmation of the ownership of land against the State is unregistered and its registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, and in special circumstances, such as where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of the registration or the registry and continues to assert the ownership of the State, the benefit of confirmation exists;

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da45944, Nov. 11, 2010). According to the evidence No. 1-3, each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1-3 (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case”) was divided into the land of Daegu-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun without completing registration of preservation of ownership up to now. Although Defendant A was entered in each forest register as the owner who was under circumstances on April 28, 1917, the address may be recognized as being vacant, and even if Defendant A’s personal information is unclear and the Republic of Korea is dissatisfied with the ownership of Defendant A, the Plaintiff, who is entitled to claim the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of acquisition by prescription against Defendant A, has legal interest in seeking confirmation of ownership of each land.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion in the Republic of Korea, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff only purchased each of the instant real estate from C, and that the Plaintiff’s possession constitutes an unauthorized occupancy, since it was not purchased from the Defendant A.

However, according to Article 197 (1) of the Civil Code, since the possessor of an article is presumed to possess it as his/her own intention, the possessor does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention in cases where the possessor claims the acquisition by prescription.