The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(Provided, “Defendant Asan City” is entirely changed to “Asan City of the first instance co-defendants,” and “Asan City of the first instance”). 2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff seeks confirmation of ownership against the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s ownership is infringed or impeded as the Plaintiff’s ownership is revoked illegally and the relevant register is closed.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation must be immediately removed because of the Plaintiff’s right or legal status unstable and danger, and the removal of such apprehension and risk is recognized only when the Defendant’s receiving a judgment against the Defendant is the most effective and appropriate means. Thus, in a case where the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is not in danger, or the removal of such apprehension and danger is not in danger or due to the existence of other special circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation if there is no practical necessity for the Plaintiff to receive a judgment for confirmation due to the Plaintiff’s dance or

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da21559 delivered on August 11, 1995, etc.). C.

In full view of the above facts, Gap evidence No. 10 was written in the front line foundation and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant filed a lawsuit against co-inheritors (including the plaintiff) on October 12, 2005, seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration according to the defendant's shares in inheritance regarding the inherited property including the real estate in this case (Seoul Western District Court 2005Da56134), and on November 1, 2006, the ownership relationship was organized according to the inheritance shares (per 1/9 shares) even with respect to the real estate in this case where the registration of transfer was made on the sole ownership of the plaintiff on November 1, 2006.