1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit is based on the Plaintiff’s 700/1427 shares on the land, which are the father of the Plaintiff, and the register of the instant land was recorded as C by mistake, and D and the Plaintiff’s father C are the same persons in substance.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that he/she seeks confirmation of the Plaintiff’s ownership status, which is the heir of C, as to 1/8 of the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares out of 700/1427 shares of the instant land.

A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit of confirmation only in special circumstances, such as where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the registered titleholder, and the State continues to assert the ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817 delivered on July 25, 1995, and Supreme Court Decision 94Da39123 delivered on May 9, 1995, etc.). However, the instant land is not unregistered land, but is owned by a titleholder on the registry, and the Defendant does not dispute the ownership of the instant land as owned by the State while denying the ownership of the titleholder. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

(A) The Plaintiff did not seek confirmation of ownership against the State, but did not take the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer along with the materials to recognize that the Plaintiff is a legitimate heir with respect to the instant land, and if the application for registration is rejected, it would have to be disputed by the registrar’s objection against the disposition, etc.).