beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no registered titleholder or who is not known is entitled to seek confirmation of ownership against the State. As such, the registration of ownership was completed in the name of B and the registration of ownership was completed in the name of C on the ground that the land in this case is unknown, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of C on the ground that it is not known, and all of them should be cancelled. The Plaintiff occupied the land in this case in a peaceful manner with the intent to own it for at least
Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant that he has ownership on the instant land.
B. The Defendant’s instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
2. A claim for the confirmation of land ownership against the State shall be limited to the cases where the land is unregistered and its registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of the registration and where special circumstances exist, such as the State continuously asserts the ownership.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633 Decided October 15, 2009). In addition, in order to acquire the ownership of land due to the completion of prescription, the method of filing a claim for ownership transfer registration against the owner at the time of the completion of prescription, which would lose ownership, should be applied. There is no benefit to seek confirmation against the State, which is merely a third party, that there exists the right to claim ownership transfer or ownership transfer registration against it.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da39123 delivered on May 9, 1995). The registration of ownership preservation is completed in the name of B with respect to the instant land, and there is no dispute over the fact that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed to C, so the instant land is not unregistered land, but the Defendant did not assert ownership by denying C’s ownership.