(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.02.07 2019가단10320



1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.


1. Basic facts

A. (1) The land listed in attached Table 1(1) (hereinafter “instant land”).

(B) On May 12, 1913, the land cadastre is written as B from May 12, 1913, and is written as B’s ownership. 2) On the land cadastre of the land listed in Annex 1(2) of Annex 1 (hereinafter “instant land”). The C Dong B is written as owned by B under the circumstances.

B. Each land of this case is unregistered.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleading as to each of the instant lands was owned by D. The plaintiff acquired 2/42 shares of each of the instant lands by inheritance from D and owned the said shares.

However, as the Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s ownership, the Defendant seeks confirmation of ownership of the Plaintiff’s share out of each land of this case.

3. The defendant's defense prior to the merits had no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership of the land of this case against the defendant.

In light of the above, since each of the lands of this case is unregistered and written only in B or C Dong B as its owner on land cadastre, it cannot be proved that each of the lands of this case is owned by D, which is the deceased, and since the defendant denies that the above land cadastre and D, which the plaintiff asserted as the deceased, are the same person, the plaintiff's ownership is disputed, it is reasonable to deem that there is a benefit in confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da34390 delivered on July 10, 2001, etc.). Accordingly, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. We examine whether B, the assessment title of each land of this case, is the same as D, the Plaintiff’s fleet.

In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1’s statement, the Plaintiff’s permanent domicile No. 1 and No. 1 and the fact that the Plaintiff died at the permanent domicile on November 13, 1957 is recognized.

However, each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 shall be the whole of the pleadings.