1. From March 1, 1939 to March 1, 1939, the Plaintiff (designated parties) added at the trial room is 285m2,00,000,000 square meters per annum.

Of the instant lawsuit, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the lawfulness of the part relating to the claim for confirmation of ownership in the past is aimed at eliminating risks or apprehensions with respect to the current rights or legal status. As such, inasmuch as the previous legal relations affect the current rights or legal status, and obtaining a judgment of confirmation of the previous legal relations is deemed valid and appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the current rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da9632, May 30, 2018). However, seeking confirmation of the ownership of the land in the past or the instant land from March 1, 1939 to the deceased or the designated parties, seeking confirmation of the ownership of the land in the past or the instant land from March 1, 1939 to the deceased or the designated parties, is seeking confirmation of the previous legal relations. In particular, in a case where the Defendant claimed that the ownership of the land in the past was acquired due to the completion of possession, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes the current owner or the legal status of the Plaintiffs’s right or the ownership.

Therefore, the claim for confirmation of ownership of the land or the land of this case before subdivision from March 1, 1939 to March 1, 1939 is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

(q) the remainder;