1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant is dismissed.

2. Defendant B: Ulsan-gun C Forest land 3.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by based service by publication (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

C. Accordingly, Defendant B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on November 30, 2013 with respect to the instant land on the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition on November 30, 2013.

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant land is limited to Defendant B (hereinafter “B”).

(ii) Although this is the name of assessment, the registration of ownership of the instant land was not made until now because the land owner was not specified as B due to such reasons as the address in B on the land cadastre is indicated “Ulsan-gun D,” and the registration of ownership was not made. Since this is the case where the identity of the registrant on the land cadastre is unknown and it is not possible to prove the identity of the registrant on the land cadastre and there is a benefit to seek confirmation from the State against the State, the instant claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea for confirmation against the owner of the instant land is reasonable. (ii) Accordingly, the Defendant Republic of Korea can identify who is the registrant of the instant land through the Chinese characters and address in B on the land cadastre and the situation at the time of the land cadastre, and the said Defendant did not dispute or claim ownership of the instant land owner, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant against the said Defendant is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. The claim for confirmation of land ownership against one country is unregistered and the land is not registered in the land cadastre or land cadastre or land cadastre, or the identity of the registrant is unknown, and the State continues to assert state ownership while denying the ownership of a third party who is a registered titleholder.