1. It is confirmed that the real estate listed in the separate sheet is owned by the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The land change 1) The original State-owned C was the original State-owned District B, but became the original State-owned District due to the administrative district change on July 1, 1973. The land of the grave was 135 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

According to the old land cadastre, the above land is indicated as “D”’s owner who was examined on September 1, 1915 (No. 4 years Ma), and the owner’s address column is indicated as “E” E. 2) the 135 square meters of B grave site in “Guiju City” was converted into the area on February 1, 197, and on February 5, 197, the 446 square meters of the B grave site in “Gui-si,” following a change of land category.

3) On November 30, 1977, the size of B cemetery 446 square meters in the Guju-si is 306 square meters in the B cemetery in the Guju-si (attached Form 1).

hereinafter referred to as “instant land No. 1”

(B) 140 square meters in F school sites in the Gui-si and the Gui-si (attached Form 2).

hereinafter referred to as "the second land of this case"

)로 되었다. 나. 원고 등의 신분관계 1) 원고의 부(父)는 G이고, 조부(祖父)는 H이다.

2) The permanent domicile of H, G, and the Plaintiff is both original city I. 3) H died on August 5, 1948, and G, a family head heir, succeeded to H’s property as the head of the family.

G died on November 10, 1991, and the plaintiff, as a head of South Korea, succeeded to the property of G.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 2

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1 as to the defense prior to the merits of this case is that the Defendant did not state “JK” as a result of the former land cadastre, but if the address is omitted, it refers to the pertinent administrative district. As such, H with the address indicated in “J” was subject to the circumstances on September 1, 1915, and the said H acquired the ownership of the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff had no interest in seeking confirmation of ownership of the instant land, which was divided from the instant land, against the State, and thus, there is no interest in seeking confirmation of ownership of the instant land Nos. 1 and 2. 2) against the State. The Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of ownership against the State is unregistered and land cadastre or land cadastre.