1. The plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 3, 1976, F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to E-Y of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on December 3, 1976 (hereinafter “instant land”). The copy of the register contains the address as “Bongsan-gu G”.

B. Meanwhile, on November 19, 1958, the network H, a mediation panel of the plaintiffs, died, and on April 13, 1968, the network I married with the Council on April 13, 1968, and was divorced from the J on January 3, 2007, and died on February 2, 2007, and was married with the plaintiff A on February 1, 2007. The permanent domicile of the network H is "Y of Gangseo-gu, Busan."

C. The Plaintiffs filed an application for registration of inheritance with the Gangseo-gu Busan District Court registry of the instant land. However, the pertinent court registry officer dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for registration on the ground that it is insufficient to vindicate that F and the deceased deceased H, who is the nominal owner on the instant land registry, are the same person. The Plaintiffs raised an objection against the rejection disposition by the registry officer (No. 2017B group 1), but the objection was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, fact-finding results and purport of whole pleadings against the head of Gangseo-gu Busan District Office

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. As to the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiffs asserted that their decedent H and the registered titleholder F of the instant land are the same person, and that the State is seeking confirmation of inheritance registration right against the instant land, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation 1, the benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff as a confirmation judgment in order to eliminate the risk of uncertainty when the Plaintiff’s legal status is in danger.

The third party who is not the State shall be future.