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

However, the registration of the instant real estate was not completed due to the lack of the registered titleholder on the land cadastre at the time of Innju, which is the land before replotting, and the registration of the instant real estate was not completed.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the ownership of the real estate in this case against the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine as the confirmation judgment in order to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable and dangerous.

Any third party, other than the State, who asserts that he/she is a legitimate owner of the land for which ownership transfer registration is made, shall obtain a judgment against the title holder of the registration to confirm his/her ownership, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State.

A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit of confirmation only in extenuating circumstances, such as denying the ownership of a third party who is the registered titleholder and asserting that the State is the ownership of the State.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633 Decided October 15, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 94Da39123 Decided May 9, 1995, etc.) B.

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the statement No. 1 of the evidence No. 1, the fact that no real estate of this case is unregistered, but the statement No. 2 of the evidence No. 2 of this case is written.