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. According to the Land Survey Division for Gwangju-gun C prepared by the Department of the Provisional Land Survey in the Japanese occupation period, the answer of Gwangju-gun D was stated as being under circumstances by e and 2 others, and E was the clan member of the plaintiff clan.

B. Gwangju-gun was divided into F 380 square meters on March 20, 1953, G 483 square meters (the instant land) and H932 square meters on March 20, 1953.

With respect to F and H, registration of preservation of ownership has been completed for each one-third portion in the future of I, J, and K on May 27, 1981.

On the other hand, registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership of this case”) was completed for G (the land in this case) by the Suwon District Court, Sung-nam Branch of Gwangju Branch of District Court on March 14, 1996 as the receipt No. 10817 on March 14, 1996.

Since August 3, 2011, each land was changed to Gwangju City L, B, and M due to the change of administrative district name.

C. Meanwhile, around 2013 regarding F and H land, the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/3 shares in N,O, and P was completed on the grounds of inheritance, gift, etc. by consultation and division. The O shares were transferred to P and N in May 25, 2013, and N and P own each of the above lands in 1/2.

The land of this case is classified as a road and is used as a ditch for the flow of water coming from the mountain.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was registered under title trust with clan E, Q and R, so the registration of ownership preservation of this case in the Defendant’s name should be null and void, and the Defendant sought confirmation that the land of this case was owned by the Plaintiff.

3. In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation as to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation of ownership, the benefit of confirmation is limited to the case where the party’s rights or legal status is currently in danger and the removal thereof is the most effective means to obtain a judgment.