1. It is confirmed that each real estate listed in the separate sheet is owned by the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up during the Japanese occupation point period, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was examined on April 10, 1912 with B, and indicated that the ownership was transferred to C on February 4, 1915. Even based on the previous land cadastre, the ownership was transferred to C on February 4, 1915. However, there is no indication such as the address identifying who is the above C on the land survey register or the previous land cadastre.

B. On the other hand, D (D, E, permanent domicile: F) died at the above permanent domicile on March 8, 1920, and the Plaintiff, as the ex post facto guardian of D, succeeded to the said D solely in accordance with the former Act.

C. At present, the real estate of this case, which is not yet registered, has the Plaintiff’s five and five graves, and the Plaintiff has paid local taxes, such as land tax, on the real estate of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 7 (each number is included), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of ownership of the real estate of this case against the defendant by the lawsuit of this case alleging that the plaintiff is the same person, who is the title holder of registration on the land cadastre of this case, the defendant raised no interest in the confirmation of the lawsuit of this case, and thus, the ground for appeal is examined.

A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit of confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as the State continuously denying the ownership of a third person who is a registered titleholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da57704, Mar. 11, 1994). At present, it is unclear who is only C whose name is indicated on the land cadastre of this case, and the Defendant is the aforementioned.