1. The intermediate confirmation of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (the intermediate confirmation plaintiff, the designated party)'s main claim.

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the lawsuit for interim confirmation is lawful, whether the lawsuit for interim confirmation in this case is legitimate.

The intermediate confirmation is a kind of confirmation suit that is filed in combination with the litigation procedures concerning the legal relationship in which the judgment of the principal claim is settled during the course of the principal lawsuit. The intermediate confirmation suit in this case cannot be seen as a prior legal relationship with respect to the judgment of the principal claim, and thus, is unlawful.

2. The Plaintiff (the appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) filed a registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of the real name by asserting that the registration of ownership transfer of the Defendant clan’s name with respect to the instant forest is invalid, and that the Plaintiff and the designated parties indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest”) owned by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the designated parties indicated in the separate sheet of designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”).

According to each description of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the defendant, who is the actual owner of the forest of this case, entrusted the ownership of the forest of this case to D, who is the father of the clan, etc. of this case, for the registration of ownership transfer on June 13, 193, when D, which is the father of the plaintiff, etc., died on July 20, 1939, the registration of ownership transfer was made on January 31, 1940, and the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of family inheritance was made on January 31, 1940, and the plaintiff et al. may recognize the fact that he is the co-inheritors of Eul. However, according to evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, according to the fact that the defendant, who is the actual owner of the forest of this case, entrusted the ownership of the forest of this case to the plaintiff et al. of this case, and the defendant clan was judged in the appellate court against the plaintiff et al.