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

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8-1, 2, 11, and 12, and there is no counter-proof.

On March 11, 1996, the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) under 1012, which was accepted by the two-year registry offices of the Chuncheon District Court.

(hereinafter referred to as the “registration of initial ownership”). B.

On December 26, 1999, Non-Party B died and became the heir of Non-Party C, Non-Party D, Non-Party D, E, F, and G, the spouse of Non-Party B, and Non-Party B was the heir of the Plaintiff, Non-Party D, E, F, and G, the child of which was the deceased on September 22, 2003.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Nonparty Party B owned the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff solely inherited the instant real estate. As such, the Plaintiff sought confirmation against the Defendant as to the ownership of the instant real estate, and sought implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership preservation based on ownership.

B. As to the legitimacy of the claim for confirmation of ownership, the defendant asserts that the part of the claim for confirmation of ownership among the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed as there is no benefit of confirmation.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where determination by a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable and dangerous. Thus, even though a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought, filing a lawsuit for performance is not a final solution of a dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 delivered on March 9, 2006, etc.). The Plaintiff, on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant real estate, filed a claim for the cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant, under the name of the owner of the instant real estate.