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

“C” recorded as the owner on the entire registered matters of the instant land as the owner on the entire certificate is the same as the deceased, and the instant land is the land of the deceased who exercised ownership, such as the deceased’s direct purchase from F on April 10, 1956 and payment of property tax, or receipt of compensation for transfer to roads on June 25, 2001.

However, the Plaintiff is unable to exercise his right due to the above circumstances even if he succeeded to the land of this case from the deceased. Therefore, C and the deceased have sought confirmation on the same person, and as a preliminary measure sought confirmation on whether the land of this case is owned by the deceased.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine ex officio the main claim among the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendant in order to eliminate anxietys and risks in rights or legal status, and mere fact or fact-finding is not allowed as there is no benefit of confirmation.

However, the issue of whether C and E are the same person is merely a fact-free issue that is not directly related to the legal relations of the plaintiff, such as the rights and obligations.

B. Next, we examine the Defendant’s main defense as to the conjunctive claim.

If a decedent and a titleholder are the same person as the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff can be relieved by the method that the plaintiff is recognized as a legitimate heir in the registration procedure. Since the defendant denies the ownership of the land in this case and does not dispute the ownership of the State, it does not mean that the plaintiff is the same person in the registration book, and the document that proves the inheritance.