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

2. The defendant shall enter the attached list in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs are married couple, and the plaintiffs B are children of the defendant.

B. On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiffs received from the Defendant the donation of each 1/3 shares of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Large 279m2 and its ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and the above ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant old buildings”), and completed each registration of ownership transfer based on each of the above donations on May 16, 2016.

C. On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant: (a) removed the previous building of this case; and (b) obtained permission for the construction of the building listed in the separate sheet in the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant building”).

After completion of the instant building, approval for use was completed on January 13, 2017.

The defendant entered the building management ledger on the building of this case as the owner and owner.

E. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant equally paid the cost of construction of the instant building.

F. On March 13, 2017, the Defendant filed for registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of this case”) of the instant building, as described in paragraph (2) of the Disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the part of the claim for ownership confirmation in the lawsuit of this case, ex officio, on the determination of the legitimacy of the claim for ownership confirmation.

A lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the defendant in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger, apprehension and danger. Thus, a lawsuit for confirmation can be brought, despite the fact that a lawsuit for confirmation is not a final solution of a dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.

Supreme Court Decision 2004Da36215 Decided July 14, 2005