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

2. The defendant is on the B river size 2,175 square meters in Gwangju City.

1. The Plaintiff asserts the legality of the part of the claim for ownership verification as the heir of the title holder of assessment of B river B in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff seeks to cancel the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant land and at the same time seeks to confirm that the ownership of the instant land exists to the Plaintiff. However, in the event a performance suit is possible based on a certain right, the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership verification does not have a benefit of confirmation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership verification is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit, since there is no benefit of lawsuit.

2. Determination on the part of the claim for cancellation of registration of initial ownership

A. (1) On September 30, 1911, Gwangju City, approximately 658, was assessed against D residing in Gwangju City, “B”.

(2) On February 2, 1934, 1934, the Plaintiff’s fleet F, whose legal domicile is Gyeonggi-do Gyeyang-gun E, was the heir of the Plaintiff’s father, and the deceased on June 21, 1962, and became the heir of the Plaintiff.

(3) The permanent domicile of the Plaintiff’s prior F, H and I’s original copy of the Plaintiff’s prior F shall be both the permanent domicile of the GJ of Gwangju-do.

(4) The land category was changed on May 31, 1958 to the river before Gwangju City, B, 658, and the defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership, such as the order of Paragraph 2, around March 26, 1996.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) Determination (1) The same is identical to the Plaintiff’s prior domicile and the name of the assessment titleholder, and D’s Chinese name, the name of the Plaintiff’s prior domicile and the name of the assessment titleholder, and the name of the assessment titleholder. Although F’s primary domicile on the Plaintiff’s primary domicile are Yangyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do, the permanent domicile appears to be a prior domicile after the date of the assessment of the instant land, and F’s punishment and the permanent domicile of the birthee appears to be “Seoul-si, Gyeonggi-do,” while F appears to have resided in C at the time of the instant land assessment.