1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The instant land for which the Plaintiff sought confirmation of ownership by the Defendant’s main defense of this case had already been registered in the name C, and thus there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State.

2. Determination

(a) A claim for confirmation of the ownership of land against the State shall be limited to the cases where such land is unregistered and its registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or where there are special circumstances, such as where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of the registration or enrollment, and the State continues to assert the ownership, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da58738 delivered on December 2, 1994, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633 delivered on October 15, 2009, etc.) B.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, it is recognized that the registration of ownership preservation has already been completed in the name of C on June 28, 1965 with respect to the land of this case, and the defendant does not assert that the land of this case is owned by the State. Thus, the plaintiff has no interest in seeking confirmation of ownership of the land of this case against the defendant.

C. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the owner of the instant land is the Plaintiff himself/herself, and at the time of applying for registration of preservation of ownership, the Plaintiff made an error in the entry of “A” into “C.” In such a case, the Plaintiff applies for registration of change (or correction) of the indication of the registered titleholder pursuant to the Real Estate Registration Act and subordinate statutes, and if the registration officer rejects the application, he/she shall file an objection against the disposition

3. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful.