1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selected D (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the deposit against the Plaintiff, the actual owner of the building, as the lessee of the building E on the Goyang-gu Incheon-gu E ground that C newly built. On September 25, 2012, the judgment was rendered in favor of some of the parties on the ground of the exercise of the right to demand a subrogation claim based on the subrogation right against the obligee on January 24, 2014 at the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2013Na25851) and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. C under title trust with the non-party G of the FJ 296.3m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in Goyang-dong, Ilyang-gu, Ilyang-si (hereinafter “the instant land”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of G on November 23, 199.

C. C applied for a building permit on December 3, 199 in G’s name to construct a building on the instant land, and obtained a building permit from the competent agency, and newly constructed a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). The instant building is unregistered.

The name of the owner of the instant building was changed from G on June 11, 2012 to the defendant.

The Plaintiff, etc. filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, who is the nominal owner of the building permit of this case, in subrogation of C based on the claim as seen earlier, prior to his own claim against C, seeking confirmation of the ownership of the instant building and implementation of the procedure for change of the name of the building owner in C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. We examine ex officio the part of the claim for confirmation of ownership as to whether the part of the claim for confirmation of ownership is lawful.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship that is the object of confirmation, and the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous.