1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 5, 1960 with respect to each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the lands of this case”) under the name of Nonparty D on December 31, 1958, and the address of D on the registry of each of the lands of this case as “Masan City E”.

B. Also, the land cadastre of each of the instant lands is indicated as having been transferred the ownership as shown in the above registry.

C. On October 20, 2012, Nonparty F died after having left the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) A, Appointor B, and C as his/her bereaved family member.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 2, 4 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) asserts that: (a) the deceased F acquired ownership of each of the instant lands due to the completion of repayment on December 31, 1958; (b) the name was erroneously stated in the process of the registry and land cadastre as “D”; (c) as such, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) sought confirmation as to whether each of the instant lands is owned by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the heir of the deceased F, and B, and C, who are the successors of the deceased F.

B. Therefore, the claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is not unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit in confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as the State's refusal of ownership by a third party who is the registered titleholder, and the State's continued to assert state ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da58738 delivered on December 2, 1994). In light of the above legal principle, according to the health care unit and the above recognition, each of the instant lands is not unregistered, and the Defendant asserts the state ownership by denying the ownership of each of the instant lands.