1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The instant real estate is unregistered land whose name “K,” located in the “Seoul-gun Igol” in the old land cadastre prepared in the Japanese colonial era, stated as an assessment in around 1912.

B. The Plaintiffs’ high-helped L was the Gyeongbuk-gun M, the permanent domicile of which was Gyeongbuk-gun M, and died on June 21, 1936 (fire 11 year), and the head of the family N N, the heir of Australia, was solely inherited L’s property.

C. N on May 30, 1947, died, N, N, N, 1933. (Fire 8 years) 193.

8. 16. Death, P, an son of the O, solely inherited N’s property.

P was deceased on October 9, 2004 and the plaintiff B, C, D, E, F, and G, the spouse of the plaintiff A and his children, are co-inheritors.

The inheritance shares are 3/15 Plaintiff A, and the remaining Plaintiffs are 2/15, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the pleading before oral argument

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant asserts that there is no benefit in confirmation, the claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered and that there is no registrant on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or that there is no identity of the registrant on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, and there is a benefit in confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as the State continuously denying the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of the registration or the registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da45944, Nov. 11, 2010). Since the address of J, the nominal owner of the land cadastre and the legal domicile of the plaintiffs at the time of the occurrence of L, the permanent domicile of the land cadastre of the instant case, are not accurately consistent, the registration titleholder cannot be identified as to the instant real estate, and therefore, the Plaintiffs have benefit in seeking confirmation of ownership against

B. We examine the merits.

The Plaintiffs are the owners of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiffs are the successors.