1. All of the plaintiff's lawsuits against the defendant Republic of Korea shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B and C.

1. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant Republic of Korea is lawful

A. Determination 1 on Defendant Republic of Korea’s principal safety defense does not lead to the conclusion that each of the lands listed in the separate sheet is owned by Defendant B and C, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant Republic of Korea is unlawful as there is no interest in confirmation. (ii) The claim against the State for confirmation of land ownership is unlawful as the land is unregistered, and it is impossible to identify the registrant or the titleholder on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, and there is a benefit in confirmation only in the case of special circumstances, such as the State’s refusal of ownership by a third party, who is the titleholder of registration or registration, and the State’

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633 Decided October 15, 2009). In addition, due to the certification of ownership for preservation registration, a lawsuit for confirmation of ownership filed by a landowner against the State is not subject to dispute between the parties to domestic affairs.

There is interest in confirmation, even if there is interest in confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 78Da2399 delivered on April 10, 1979) 3, in light of the above legal principles, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-4 and all pleadings as to this case, each land listed in the separate sheet is unregistered, and each land listed in the separate sheet is listed as "Yado B" and "Yado C" in the land cadastre of the above land, and each of the above land cannot be proved to be owned by defendant B and C. Thus, even if the defendant Republic of Korea does not dispute that each land listed in the separate sheet is owned by defendant B and C, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea to confirm that each land listed in the separate sheet is owned by the defendant B and C should be deemed to have a benefit in its confirmation.

B. We examine ex officio the existence of the preserved right, on the premise that the plaintiff has the right to claim the transfer of ownership upon the completion of the prescription period for sale or possession against the defendant B and C.