1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The defendant cannot file an application for registration of preservation of ownership only with the co-ownership of some co-owners, not all the co-owners. The plaintiff sought confirmation of ownership of some co-ownership of the co-owners of the land of this case by the lawsuit of this case, and the defendant does not dispute this. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it has no profit of lawsuit.

However, even if all co-owners are entitled to file for registration of ownership preservation for each co-owner's share of co-ownership to file for registration, all co-owners do not necessarily have to file for registration at the same time as co-litigation, and as seen below, insofar as the defendant denies that he is the same person, and denies the ownership of the plaintiff and the designated parties for the land of this case, the plaintiff has a benefit of seeking confirmation of ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da34390, Jul. 10, 2001). Thus, the defendant's defense on a different premise is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is asserted as shown in the annexed sheet.

Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that “E” located in “D” registered as one of co-owners on the forestry land register and land cadastre of this case cannot be readily concluded that the said “E” was the same as the decedent of the Plaintiff and the designated persons, and that the said “E” asserted by the Plaintiff on the premise that it was the decedent of the Plaintiff and the designated persons.

3. First of all, we examine whether “E” recorded as one of co-owners is the decedents of the Plaintiff and the designated parties in the forestry land register and land cadastre of this case.

Plaintiff

In September 26, 1918, E, the decedent, died.