1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The former land cadastre concerning 5,113 Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun (the land was later divided, land category change, and area conversion registration) stated that each of the above land was determined B on November 20, 1912, and that the ownership was transferred to “State” on September 1, 1922.

B. The defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on June 26, 1969, as stated in the purport of the claim regarding each of the land of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit claiming ownership verification is lawful

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

In a lawsuit for confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649, Sept. 15, 1995). In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation must be guaranteed as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain judgment from the defendant to eliminate such apprehension and danger and danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 1991). A lawsuit for confirmation may be brought against the defendant claiming performance, even though it is not a final solution of a dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006).

Judgment

As seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership of each of the instant land ex officio is identical to the fact that the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership. As such, the Plaintiff confirmed against the Defendant, who is the registered titleholder, as its owner.