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

A. As to the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 7, 1957 under the name of “A” on February 15, 1965.

B. In the registry of the land of this case, the above registered titleholder’s name “A” is not indicated, and the address is indicated as “A” and “A”.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the above registered titleholder A and the Plaintiff are the same person and sought confirmation as the owner of the instant land against the Defendant in charge of registration affairs.

(b) A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State shall have interest in confirmation only in special circumstances, such as where the land is unregistered and its registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or where the registrant is unknown, or where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of registration or enrollment, and the State continues to assert the ownership, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817 delivered on July 25, 1995, and Supreme Court Decision 94Da39123 delivered on May 9, 1995, etc.). However, the instant land is not unregistered land but is owned by a titleholder on the registry, and the Defendant does not deny that it is owned by the titleholder or claim that it is owned by the Defendant. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

(A) The plaintiff can correct the indication of registration by filing an application for the registration of correction of the indication of the registered titleholder with respect to the land of this case, and if the application is rejected, it shall be contested by the registrar's objection against the disposition, etc.).