beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The basic facts are the clans that consist of 15 years of age E descendants who are the 13 years of age grouped of No. 13 years of age grouped of No. Da, and that the plaintiff is engaged in the activities to promote friendship among the graves of the relevant vessel, the sprinkers, and the descendants.
Attached Form
Each real estate recorded in the list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is an unregistered real estate, and its land cadastre is registered as a result of the networkF on May 20, 1913.
The plaintiff paid property tax, etc. on each real estate of this case.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff is seeking confirmation of ownership of each real estate of this case, the net F of which was under the circumstances, against the Defendant.
In a case where there is a person who has been registered as an owner on the registry, land cadastre, or forest land cadastre with respect to a certain land, and in a case where there is a person who has been registered as an owner on the registry, land cadastre, or forest land cadastre, an application for registration of preservation of ownership may be filed against the State when a final and conclusive judgment is rendered to confirm that the relevant real estate is owned by the applicant for registration of preservation of ownership. Thus, a request for confirmation of ownership against the State is unregistered and the land is neither unregistered nor known as the registrant on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre or forest land cadastre, and there is a benefit in confirmation
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da58738, Dec. 2, 1994; 2010Da45944, Nov. 11, 2010). As to the instant case, the health care unit and the circumstance titleholder of each real estate of this case are as seen earlier, and the Defendant does not dispute the ownership relationship of each real estate of this case.