beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion that each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the forest of this case") is owned by the plaintiff itself, and each registration of preservation of ownership is completed, and the plaintiff's name and address are recorded erroneously as "C", and the plaintiff's name and address are currently registered erroneously as of the wind that the plaintiff's name and address are recorded erroneously, but the plaintiff and C registered as the owner of each forest of this case is clearly the same person. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant that each forest of this case is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.
2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense
A. In a case where a claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State of relevant legal principles is unregistered and the land is no registered titleholder in the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of a registered titleholder is unknown, there is a benefit of confirmation only in the case where the presumption of right is not recognized in the entry of the owner of land cadastre or forest land cadastre for unregistered land or forest land cadastre, or in the case of special circumstances, such as the State continuously asserts ownership while denying the ownership of a third party registered. Thus, in a case where a registration of land is made, if the identity of a person is recognized even if the entry of a registered titleholder in the register is in accord with the actual entry, the indication of the registered titleholder
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da230815, Oct. 27, 2016). B.
1) In light of the above legal principles, the case of this case is examined as follows. According to the records of health team, Gap 1 through 4, and Eul 1 (including paper numbers), each of the forest of this case is classified as "Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land" (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969) around November 26, 1971.