1. Defendant B is based on the sale on May 20, 1984 with respect to the Plaintiff’s Daegu Suwon-gu D river 3,679 square meters.

1. Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that Defendant Republic of Korea’s claim against Defendant Republic of Korea against Defendant is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

The claim for the confirmation of land ownership against the State shall be limited to the cases where the land is unregistered and the registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of the registration and where there are special circumstances, such as the State continuously asserting the ownership, there is a benefit of confirmation.

Therefore, inasmuch as the land cadastre and a previous copy (No. 1) of the land cadastre (hereinafter “instant land”) of Daegu Suwon-gu D river3,679 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) are stated “E” and do not specify the owner’s date of birth or address, etc., and the above copy of the land cadastre cannot be confirmed as the registration titleholder, the Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant C and Defendant B on the premise that the part of the deceased F, who is the husband of Defendant C, is the owner of the instant land, in the instant lawsuit, under the premise that the father of the deceased F, who is the husband of the Defendant C, is the owner of the instant land, shall be deemed to have the benefit to seek confirmation that the instant land is owned by the Defendant C.

(See Supreme Court Decision 99Da34390 Decided July 10, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da5834 Decided September 13, 2013). Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense prior to the merits is rejected.

2. Judgment on the confession as to the claim against Defendant B (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. According to the judgment of the claim against the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendant C, the statement No. 1, the fact-finding reply by the Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor and the overall purport of the pleadings, the name of the father of the defendant C's husband net F (Death of October 1958, October 8, 1958) is "E", and ② F and the defendant C are G (H).