1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On June 25, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant purchased, together, three parcels of land donated by the Defendant from the Defendant from the Defendant, and the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, which is an unregistered building on the above land (hereinafter “instant building”); and (b) has been used as the owner of the instant building until now.

However, the site of the building of this case was assigned to the road and the compensation was set for the building, and the network C entered the building ledger in the building ledger of this case as the owner, and there is a risk that the plaintiff would not obtain the compensation.

Therefore, the instant building sought confirmation as owned by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.

2. A lawsuit seeking confirmation on the interest in confirmation is recognized when the plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous, and it is acknowledged that obtaining a judgment on confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous, and filing a lawsuit claiming performance, despite the fact that filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation is not a final solution of a dispute, and thus there is no benefit

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41153 Decided July 10, 2008. Meanwhile, even if a transferee of an unregistered building has not completed the registration of ownership transfer, he/she cannot acquire ownership of the building unless he/she has completed the registration of ownership transfer, and cannot be said to have a customary real right equivalent to ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da53006, Jun. 14, 1996). It is difficult to recognize any comprehensive right or legal status that is de facto ownership under the current law.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant, who is the nominal owner of the instant building, donated the said building to the Defendant solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da49000, Oct. 27, 2006).

Furthermore, even if the plaintiff's assertion is based on, the plaintiff is merely the transferee of the unregistered building.