1. He shall verify that the area of 759 square meters prior to Jeju-si is C’s ownership;

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. In full view of the overall purport of each entry and pleading in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), Jeju-si, B, 759 square meters prior to B (hereinafter “instant land”) is unregistered land under the circumstances of the network D. The fact that the network D died on December 12, 1958 and C inherited the instant land solely as the family heir, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C on December 12, 2014 against the Plaintiff on the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition, and the Jeju-si District Court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on December 12, 2014, and the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive ( Jeju District Court Decision 2014Da130, Jeju District Court 2015Na52, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da53735).

2. The Defendant who has the benefit of confirmation does not deny that the instant land is owned by the network D, so it would be sufficient for the deceased D’s heir to implement the registration procedure for preservation of ownership based on land cadastre after completing the registration of address of unregistered land, and the Plaintiff’s right to seek confirmation against the Defendant is not profitable.

In full view of the above evidence and the purport of the whole argument, the plaintiff is a person who has obtained a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the deceased D's sole heir, and the plaintiff tried to register the ownership transfer of C in subrogation of C by subrogationing C with the right to claim the ownership transfer registration of C as the preserved bond. However, although the address on the land of this case became vacant and C was not registered due to C's failure to complete his own address registration, and it is not possible for the plaintiff to complete the registration of ownership registration on behalf of C, rather than seeking the confirmation of ownership against the defendant. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that there is a benefit to seek the confirmation of ownership against the defendant in such case.

In addition, as seen below, the defendant shall have the land of this case C.