The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as the Nonparty’s creditor, applied for compulsory auction of the instant land owned by the Nonparty.

B. However, in the registry for the instant land, C with the address in the large exhibition D is deemed to have completed the registration for the transfer of ownership on the ground of “No. 2 of August 2, 1937,” on the ground of “Sale on August 2, 1939.”

(c)

Therefore, the auction court is the plaintiff on August 2, 1937 of the registration of ownership transfer of the owner C of the certificate to be registered in real estate, and the non-party is E and thus the identity of the non-party and the owner of the certificate cannot be verified. Therefore, the auction court requested the correction of the name indication by subrogation and submitted the certificate of registration completion.

“Order of correction” was issued.

(d)

Therefore, the Plaintiff needs to vindicate that the Plaintiff is the same person as the owner in the name of Nonparty C and Nonparty C on the registry of the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant that the instant land is owned by Nonparty C.

2. As to the judgment on the defense prior to the merits of this case, the defendant asserts that there is no benefit in confirmation, so the lawsuit of this case against the State is not a case where the land is unregistered and the land is not registered on the land ledger or forest ledger, or the identity of the registered owner is unknown, and there is a benefit in confirmation only in the case where the State denies the ownership of a third party on the land registry or forest ledger, and there is no special circumstance such as where the State continues to claim ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633, Oct. 15, 2009). The land of this case is not a unregistered land, and the defendant, the State, denies the ownership of the land in the name of the registered owner, and therefore, the land of this case does not constitute a case where there is a benefit in seeking confirmation of ownership against the State.

The defendant's assertion.