1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s claim is the owner of each building listed in the separate sheet, and the Defendant voluntarily completed the registration of ownership transfer as stated in the purport of the claim on October 8, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of cancellation of agreement on April 3, 2019. The Plaintiff asserted that the former director of the tax office imposed KRW 10,000,000 on the cancellation of agreement, and sought confirmation on the invalidity of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant.

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. The subject matter of confirmation is rights or legal relations, not the subject matter of confirmation.

However, the “registration” for which the Plaintiff seeks the confirmation of invalidity refers to recording a certain relationship of rights concerning real estate in a public book called a registry in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the law, which is called a registry, and the record itself. It is only one of the requirements for the acquisition and loss of real rights to real estate due to a legal act, and the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of registration itself is not a right or legal relationship, and thus, cannot be allowed.

B. There is no interest in confirmation. Although the Plaintiff’s claim is intended to seek confirmation of invalidity or non-existence of the gift agreement (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which caused the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendant, on October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff’s claim is deemed to have been made, there is a benefit in confirmation against the Defendant, who claims the benefit in conflict with the Plaintiff’s legal interest when the judgment of confirmation was rendered is the most effective and appropriate means to ensure that there is apprehension or risk existing in the rights or legal status and to eliminate such apprehension or risk.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 1991). The Plaintiff is the former director of the Guro Tax Office.