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

A. The following registration has been completed with respect to B large-scale 175 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

1) Purpose of registration: Receipt of transfer of ownership 2: Cause for registration No. 1563 of January 9, 1979: Right holder and other matters: Owner A and Female-gun C

B. On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land with this court on behalf of the Plaintiff, but this court registry officer rendered a decision to dismiss the said application on December 22, 2014 on the ground that the address of the owner on the registry differs from that of the Plaintiff’s resident registration abstract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is due to the error that the address of the owner on the registry of the instant land differs from that of the Plaintiff’s resident registration abstract. According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is apparent that the instant land is owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment against the State, such as the statement

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is not a land cadastre and is not a registered titleholder on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or it is not known who the registered titleholder is, and there is a benefit of confirmation only in special circumstances, such as where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is a registered titleholder, and the State continues to assert the ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633 Decided October 15, 2009, etc.). The fact that the owner of the instant land was registered as “A” under the Plaintiff’s name is recognized as above. As long as the Defendant denied ownership and did not assert that the instant land is owned by the State, the circumstance alleged by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient.