beta
Text
1. At the request of an exchange change in the trial, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is as follows:
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The instant land was unregistered and assessed against “L” on April 28, 1918.
B. Meanwhile, the permanent domicile of the B, C, and D’s line network F (hereinafter “line F”) is Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City M (Gu Gyeonggi-gun N), and the line F was residing in the permanent domicile of the aforementioned person until August 17, 1947.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the entries in Gap1-1-3, 8 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense
A. The Defendant’s defense of this case is indicated on the land cadastre by the registrant, and the Defendant did not continuously assert the Defendant’s ownership while denying the ownership of the registered titleholder. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership of the instant land against the State is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
B. 1) In light of Article 65 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, if the registration of preservation of ownership of real estate cannot be proved by a certified copy of land cadastre or a certified copy of the forestry register, the registration of preservation of ownership cannot be conducted by the court. Furthermore, if the state agency, which is the competent authority in charge of the registry, contests its ownership, the lawsuit to obtain such judgment may be brought against the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da34390, Jul. 10, 2001). According to the records, the land of this case is unregistered, and the land of this case is only listed as “L” as the name of the former land cadastre, land cadastre and land cadastre, and no other information is stated, and thus, it cannot be proved that the land of this case is owned by the latter, as the owner of the latter and the latter registered as the one in the name of land cadastre and the latter are the same, B, C, and D's ownership due to the completion of the pleadings of this case.