2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On June 13, 1970, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Land, etc. (Act No. 2111) on the ground of sale with respect to the shares of 15/1,324 (hereinafter “the instant forest”) among 57,172 square meters of forests and fields, which are 57,172 square meters of forests and fields.

나. 그런데 임야대장에 첨부된 공유지연명부에 기재된 ◇◇◇ 성명의 한자(○○○) 중 한 글자 '환(○)'이 '환(◎)'으로, ◇◇◇의 주민등록번호도 '190205-1******'로 잘못 기재되었다.

C. On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the instant forest to Nonparty 1, and applied for the registration of transfer to the Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch of Seo-dong District Court on April 29, 2014, and on April 29, 2014, the elderly registry officer withdrawn the above application for registration on April 30, 2014, on the ground that: (a) one of the Chinese characters and resident registration numbers as stated in the joint delay list attached to the joint delay list, is not verified; and (b) the Plaintiff’s registration is not possible.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Gap evidence 9-1 through 3, Gap evidence 10-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on this safety defense

If the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the state where the plaintiff's Chinese name, etc. was mistakenly reported, the defendant asserts that there is not only the method of registering the correction of the indication of the registered titleholder pursuant to Article 32 (Correction of Registration) of the Registration of Real Estate Act and Article 142 (Rules No. 1366 and No. 1421) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, but also the method of registering the correction of the indication of the registered titleholder pursuant to Article 136 and the

In a case where there is a person who has been registered as an owner on the registry, the land cadastre, or the forestry registry book with respect to a certain land, the registration of preservation of ownership may be applied for in a lawsuit against the nominal owner when he obtains a final and conclusive judgment confirming that the relevant real estate is owned by the applicant for registration of preservation, so in principle, there is a benefit in the request for confirmation of ownership against the nominal owner. However, in a case where the presumption of rights as to the owner of the land cadastre or the forestry registry book is not recognized, the State has no choice but to request confirmation of ownership against the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da45944, Nov. 11, 2010). According to the above facts of recognition and each of the above evidence, since the right to the owner of the forest registry book of this case is not recognized as not having any capacity to confirm the right as to the owner of the land in this case, the claim for confirmation of ownership has

B. Judgment on the merits

According to the above facts and each of the above evidences, the "Plaintiff" recorded as the plaintiff's address on the registry and the forestry register of the forest of this case as the legal domicile of the plaintiff, and there is no "Plaintiff", the resident registration number of the above legal domicile of the plaintiff, 190205-1******. At the time the registration of the transfer of the forest of this case was completed, Nonparty 2, the ownership holder of 57,172 square meters of 57,172 square meters of 15,324 square meters of 57,172 square meters of 15,324 square meters of 57,172 square meters of 324 square meters of the forest of this case, who is the plaintiff's old legal domicile of this case, was completed by inheritance through consultation division. At the time the registration of the transfer of the forest of this case was completed under the plaintiff's name, on behalf of the plaintiff, the non-party 2 completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on behalf of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the forest land of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and as long as the defendant contests it, there is a benefit to seek confirmation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges in Future;