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

A. At around 1980, Nonparty 1 purchased from Nonparty 2 a large of 126 square meters (number 1 omitted) and a large of 646 square meters (number 2 omitted) in the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) and Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu, Seoul, and built a mentmen, a stone-building, and a sap 21 square meters and sap 28 square meters on the ground, and resided in the said housing. On December 22, 1980, Nonparty 1 was registered to preserve ownership on the said housing. On June 30, 1981, Nonparty 1 was registered to preserve ownership, and on June 30, 1981, Nonparty 1 was registered to transfer ownership.

B. The instant land indicated that the address of the titleholder on the land cadastre of the unregistered land is “salky,” and on March 10, 1916, the circumstance was indicated as the “Mai○○○,” and Nonparty 2 acquired the instant land from the person who acquired the right to dispose of the instant land from ○○○ upon the acquisition of the right to dispose of the instant land. < Amended by Act No. 1406, Mar. 10, 1916>

C. Meanwhile, Nonparty 1 died on July 2, 2004, and Plaintiff 1 is the deceased Nonparty 1’s wife, and the rest of the Plaintiffs are the deceased Nonparty 1’s children.

D. On November 28, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer against Ma○○○ (2007dada87343), and on November 28, 2007, Ma○○ rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on December 22, 2000 according to their respective inheritance shares, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 14, 2007.

E. The Plaintiffs had completed the registration of preservation of ownership with a final and conclusive judgment No. 2007da87343, and attempted to register the ownership of the instant land to the Plaintiffs. However, the Plaintiffs did not complete the registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land on the ground that the instant land was unregistered and its address on the land cadastre and its land cadastre only stated as “diversh” and the ownership cannot be specified.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant land against ○○○, the Defendant sought confirmation of ownership ownership of the instant land on behalf of ○○○○, and the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership of the instant land against the Defendant, who is the State, can be filed by the corrected land cadastre after correcting the indication of the owner on the land cadastre, and thus, registration of ownership preservation is unlawful as there is no benefit to seek confirmation.

3. Determination

According to Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, a person who proves that he/she or his/her predecessor is the owner in the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre by a certified copy of the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre register may apply for registration of preservation of ownership of the land. A person who is not entitled to such certification by the register may apply for registration of preservation of ownership of the land by proving his/her ownership by a judgment. However, if the ownership of the unregistered land is partially omitted in the indication of the owner on the land cadastre, and it is impossible to specify the owner on the register, the owner may not make registration of preservation of ownership of the land by the register, and

As seen earlier, in regard to the instant land, only the land is indicated in the land cadastre’s name and address column, which is the name and address column, and thus, it cannot be specified as the owner on the land cadastre, and even if Ma○○○ is the real owner of the instant land, registration of preservation of ownership cannot be conducted by the land cadastre. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment on the ownership transfer registration against Ma○○○○, the registration of preservation of ownership cannot be made in the future. In such a case, the Plaintiffs shall have the interest to seek confirmation on whether the instant land is owned by Ma○○, which is the premise for completing the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiffs.

4. Conclusion

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

Judges Lee Jeong-hee