(a) C, D, and E residing in Gyeonggi-gun B are listed in the Land Survey Division concerning F forest land in Gyeonggi-gun, as the owner;

B. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership”) under No. 14428, Aug. 10, 1995, which was received on August 10, 1995.

C. On August 20, 1939, C (C, legal domicile: Gyeonggi-gun G) died and succeeded to Australia by the head of C (H and legal domicile: Gyeonggi-gun G).

He died on April 5, 1946, and H succeeded to Australia (I, YEMGG).

I died on July 17, 1982, and the heir of I was the wife J and the plaintiff, the child, and the K.

The J died on March 20, 2002, and there is the plaintiff and K as the heir.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. As the representative of Lins, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the cancellation of the instant registration of initial ownership by asserting that the said clan had title trust with C, D, and E, at the time when the circumstances were found by the said clan as the court No. 2012Ga1008, the Plaintiff claimed for the cancellation of the instant registration of initial ownership.

Therefore, there is no standing for the plaintiff to seek cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation against the defendant as to the real estate of this case, which is the above clan property.

B. In a lawsuit for performance of judgment, the standing to sue lies in a person who asserts his/her right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da11848, Jun. 12, 1902; 2003Da44387, Oct. 7, 2005). Thus, the mere fact that the Defendant asserts cannot be deemed to have the standing to sue to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the above principal safety is without merit.

3. A person registered as an owner in a land research register on the merits of the case shall be entitled to the said land unless there exists any counter-proof that the assessment has been changed by the ruling.