2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3...

It is necessary to enforce compulsory execution against the building mentioned in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant building”). Thus, the Defendant seeks confirmation of ownership of the said building on the ground that registration of ownership preservation is impossible because it does not change the owner’s name to the above building.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of right, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain judgment against the defendant to eliminate such apprehension and danger (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747, Oct. 16, 1997). In this case, the health unit and the defendant do not dispute ownership of the building of this case, and if the building of this case was duly completed a construction permit or a building report, the unregistered building may apply for compulsory auction with documents under the main sentence of Article 81(1)2 of the Civil Execution Act if it was not completed a legitimate construction permit or building report, and if it was not completed a legitimate construction permit or building report, the plaintiff cannot apply for compulsory auction. In any case, there is no benefit of confirmation or benefit of protection of right to seek confirmation for compulsory auction for the purpose of applying for compulsory auction against the building of this case.

Therefore, the lawsuit on the part of the claim extended in the trial is unlawful.

2. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.