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

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3...

1. In the absence of dispute: ① in the name of F on November 9, 2006, registration of ownership preservation for the instant commercial buildings; ② in the name of F on November 27, 2008, the same year in the name of G on November 27, 2008

5.3. The same year in the name of the Plaintiff (3/11 shares) who is the wife of G on October 25, 2016 and the Defendants (2/11 shares, respectively) who are G’s children;

3.1. The transfer registration for ownership was made on the grounds of inheritance.

2. A lawsuit for confirmation of the legitimacy of a lawsuit for confirmation of ownership is permitted where there is a benefit to immediately confirm the present rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute. If a claim for performance can be filed, it is not permitted as the benefit of confirmation because it does not have any particular effectiveness in removing unstable and it cannot be a valid and appropriate means in light of the litigation economy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da6757, Jul. 23, 191). As long as the Plaintiff filed a claim for registration of cancellation against the Defendants on the premise that he is the owner of the commercial building of this case on the premise that he is the owner of the commercial building of this case, the claim for confirmation of ownership does not have any benefit

This part of the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful.

3. If the Plaintiff intends to seek the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed in the name of the Defendants regarding real estate as part of the exercise of the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration based on ownership transfer registration, then the Plaintiff must actively assert and prove that the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration has the title to the Plaintiff.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da50044, Sept. 28, 2005). Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff is merely an obligatory right holder who purchased the instant commercial building from F.

In other words, the plaintiff did not have a registration to indicate ownership in the future of the plaintiff and did not acquire ownership by the law.