beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As the instant real estate is unregistered, it is written that the “C” was acquired on October 10, 191 in the forest land register and the Gu forest land register, and the registration of the transfer was made to the E and two other persons, who had resided in Glldong-gun, on January 17, 1927 (1927).
B. On July 17, 194, the Plaintiff’s fleet E died and succeeded solely to F, a South-North Korea, and thereafter, the F died on April 20, 1975 and succeeded solely by the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, each entry in Article 19, fact-finding results with respect to the Office of Gllllldong Military Administration, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The instant lawsuit, for which the Plaintiff asserted by the Defendant, sought confirmation of ownership of the instant real estate, is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
B. Determination 1) In a case where there is a person who has been registered as an owner on the registry or the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, and in a case where there is a person who has been registered as an owner on the registry or the forest land cadastre, an application for registration of preservation of ownership may be filed against the title holder in a lawsuit against the State when the title holder obtains a final and conclusive judgment confirming that the relevant real estate is the ownership of the applicant for registration of preservation of ownership. Thus, a request for confirmation of ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is a benefit of confirmation only when the land is not registered, the title holder is unknown or the identity of the title holder is unknown on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, and when there are special circumstances, such as denying the ownership of a third party who is the title holder of the registration, and continuously claiming state ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da58738, Dec. 2, 194). 2)