1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against B and C, each representing the representative of the plaintiff.

Basic facts are the clans naturally created for the purpose of promoting the protection of graves, the spawn and the friendship of descendants by making DC 9 years old descendants a mid-term Si.

On May 1, 1955, the Daejeon Seodong-gu F. F. (hereinafter “Before the instant land substitution”) was restored on the land cadastre on May 1, 1955, and the owner’s land cadastre was indicated as “non-party 2” but it is impossible to verify the personal information of “non-party 2” and only the resident registration number (H) of G.

On July 14, 1989, the land before the instant land substitution was replaced with the land of 823 square meters and J 670 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant land”). The owner of each of the instant land was indicated as “G and two other persons,” and the personal information of “foreign two persons,” cannot be confirmed.

G died on April 20, 1964 as a clan member of the Plaintiff clan.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against G’s heir seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the termination of title trust with respect to each of the instant lands. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against G’s heir on behalf of the Republic of Korea on the ground that it is impossible to verify the identity of “non-party two”, the land of this case is unregistered and its land cadastre is owned.

(The Supreme Court Decision 2008Gadan56337, hereinafter referred to as "relevant first instance lawsuit"). On October 20, 2009, G's heirs, other than K and L, accepted the plaintiff's claim by a judgment based on the confession, but the claim against K and L was dismissed on the ground that the title trust relation cannot be recognized, and the claim against Korea was rejected on the ground that there is no benefit of confirmation.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed (Seoul District Court 2009Na17620), and the appellate court of September 29, 2010 revoked the above judgment of the first instance, and the Plaintiff’s respective cases to G.