2. Defendant B.

(a) Description of claims: A description of the cause of the separate claim;

(b) deemed confession: Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. The part demanding the confirmation of ownership

A. The Plaintiff’s ground of claim changes separately from the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation as to the benefit of confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the defendant when removing the plaintiff's right or legal status in danger, apprehension, and danger.

In addition, the defendant in a lawsuit for confirmation is likely to cause unstable legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and again, he/she shall be a person who asserts conflicting interests with the legal interests of the plaintiff and, if so, has the benefit of confirmation against such defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). However, according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff's lawsuit for confirmation of this part is to seek confirmation of ownership of past ownership against the defendant C, the title trustee, in relation to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 11, which was already sold to a third party through a compulsory auction procedure, in March 11, 2019.

However, in order to dispute the imposition of capital gains tax imposed on the plaintiff, it is necessary to go through an administrative litigation against the relevant tax authority, and to seek confirmation of ownership against the person who is the actual owner of the past who is not the tax authority is illegal as a confirmation of the past legal relations, and it is particularly necessary to eliminate the anxiety of the existing rights or legal status (such as transfer income tax liability).