1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 1-2, 1, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, and 1-2, the land investigation division prepared by the Korea-U.S. Preliminary Land Survey Bureau is written as the address of the land of the Gu-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.

2. Regarding the confirmation of ownership against the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff had been succeeded to the land of this case from the fleet in sequence, the defendant asserts that the land of this case has the title of registration on the land cadastre and the defendant did not assert that it is his own ownership, so there is no benefit of confirmation.

In light of the above facts, the claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registrant on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registrant is unknown, and there is a benefit of confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as denying the ownership by a third party who is the titleholder of the registration or the registry, and continuing to claim state ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633, Oct. 15, 2009). According to the above facts of recognition, even if the land in this case is registered as owned by F on the land cadastre, so long as the identity of the registrant cannot be known because the address, etc. is not indicated, the defendant's claim for confirmation of land ownership against the defendant cannot be made.

3. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the merits is based on the net G where the land of this case is increased by the Plaintiff.