The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A claim for confirmation of the ownership of land against the State shall be limited to the cases where such land is unregistered and its registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or where there are special circumstances, such as the State's refusal of the ownership by a third party who is a titleholder of registration or enrollment, and the State's continued to assert the ownership, etc.;

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633, Oct. 15, 2009). According to Article 87 Subparag. 4 of the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data, a creditor may subrogate an application that a landowner, who is a debtor, shall comply with the said Act in order to preserve his/her claim, but may not file an application for correction of registered matters in the cadastral record under Article 84 of the said Act by subrogation.

If part of the entry on the land cadastre is omitted, it is difficult to apply for registration of ownership preservation based on the land cadastre because the identity of the registrant is unknown. The creditor of the landowner on the land cadastre cannot correct the registered matters on the land cadastre in subrogation of the landowner. Therefore, the creditor of the landowner on the land cadastre should be deemed to have a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State by subrogation of the landowner for application for registration of ownership preservation.

2.(a)

The lower court acknowledged that the instant land was currently unregistered and indicated in the land cadastre “T” and the land cadastre “T” had no address and resident registration number, etc., but acknowledged the fact that the Defendant was not indicated in B’s address and resident registration number, etc. However, insofar as the Defendant recognized the fact that the title holder of the instant land was LA, who had a permanent domicile in the “K in the Gyeongbuk-do,” and that his heir was a co-defendant E, F, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter “B’s heir”), the Defendant against the Defendant.