소유권확인
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
A lawsuit for confirmation requires a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate risks in existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017). In particular, in cases where a claim against the State for ownership of a land is unregistered and the land is no registered, or the registrant is unknown in the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, the State has no benefit of confirmation only in extenuating circumstances, such as where the State denies ownership of a third party and continues to claim state ownership. In cases where a registration of land is made, if the identity of personality is recognized even if the entry of the holder of a title on the register does not coincide with that on the register, there is no benefit to seek confirmation against the State as to the actual ownership of the land.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da230815 Decided October 27, 2016. In light of such legal doctrine, insofar as the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) has registered the transfer of ownership of B large scale 536 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the name of D when the Plaintiff sought the confirmation of ownership, as alleged by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), seeking the confirmation of ownership against the Defendant cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights to the instant land and the designated parties’ rights or the risk of present in legal status, and thus, the Defendant’s objection on this point is reasonable.
Therefore, the instant lawsuit did not meet the requirements for protection of rights.