1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

In around 1964, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant title trust”) held title trust (hereinafter “BA, etc.”) with respect to the instant land under the name of BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, and BG (hereinafter “instant land”) which is the closing source of the Plaintiff, and around that time, registration of ownership preservation was completed with respect to the instant land under the name of BA, etc.

However, around March 4, 1974, Korea issued the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Republic of Korea.

Since then, when the land of this case was no longer necessary for military purposes, the Republic of Korea notified that it would sell the land of this case to BA, etc., the requisitioned person, etc. pursuant to Article 20-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property (hereinafter “Requisitiond Property Act”).

In order to conclude a free contract with the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff sought cooperation from the Defendants, who are successors of BA, etc., but the Defendants refused some of them and claimed their ownership in some cases.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, upon the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, expressed his/her intent to terminate the title trust of this case to the Defendants, who are successors of BA, etc., and sought confirmation from the Plaintiff and the Defendants that the status of the contracting party under Article 20-2 of the Requisition as to the instant land is the Plaintiff.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the legal status of the plaintiff as a judgment to eliminate the anxiety and risk when the legal status of the plaintiff is at risk, and thus, even though a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought, filing a lawsuit for performance is not a final solution of dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006). Pursuant to Article 20-2 of the Requisitioned Property Act, the requisitioned person or his/her heir, by means of a negotiated contract, shall have the property requisitioned from the State.