1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant lands is owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is identical to D and the Plaintiff stated in the register. As such, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant that each of the instant lands is owned by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant asserts that there is no benefit in confirmation of the lawsuit of this case.

In the event that a claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered and there is no registrant in the land cadastre or forest land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of a registrant is unknown, if the presumption of right is not recognized in the entry of the owner of land cadastre or forest land cadastre for unregistered land or forest land cadastre, or if there is a special circumstance, such as the State continuously denying the ownership of a third party that is registered or recorded, there is benefit in confirmation.

Therefore, if a registration is made on land, the entry of the holder of the title on the register does not coincide with the actual.

Even if the identity of personality is recognized, it is possible to register the change of indication of the registered titleholder, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation against the State on the actual ownership.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da230815, Oct. 27, 2016). Each of the instant land exists in the registry and land cadastre, and the owner does not constitute a case where the registrant is either indicated as D, and the owner does not know who is either the holder of the registry or land cadastre. The Defendant denies ownership, and does not dispute that each of the instant land is owned by the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff does not have a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership of each of the instant land against the Defendant.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there is a benefit of confirmation, since it received a decision of rejection from a registrar by filing an application for registration of correction of indication of each land of this case. However, the registered titleholder is legitimate.