1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s ownership of 35/182 shares out of 25,289 square meters of land B in Nam-si, Namwon-si;

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

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant asserts that there is no benefit in the confirmation of ownership by the Plaintiff against the State as to the share of 35/182 out of B forest No. 25,289 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(b) A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State shall have interest in confirmation only in special circumstances, such as where the land is unregistered and its registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or where the registrant is unknown, or where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of registration or enrollment, and the State continues to assert the ownership, etc.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633, Oct. 15, 2009). In cases where part of the entry in the land cadastre is omitted, the registration of ownership preservation cannot be applied for the land cadastre because it falls under the case where the registrant cannot be identified, and thus, the landowner has a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Da24246 Decided May 16, 2019). C.

The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap 1 and 2.

The instant land was considered to be owned by C on June 28, 1919, June 28, 1919 (hereinafter “owner in the forest land register of this case”).

In the forest land register of this case, the address of the above owner is omitted.

The land of this case constitutes a case where the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown because the address is omitted among the indication of the owner in the forest cadastral book. As such, the registration of ownership preservation cannot be applied for in the forest cadastral book. As such, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State, who asserts that he/she owns 35/182 shares of the

E. Therefore, the defendant's above main defense cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on the merits.