1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 1, 1955, the owner’s column for land cadastre B, Jung-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant land”) was unregistered, and “D: E” was entered in the column for land cadastre restorationd from May 1, 195, and on December 3, 1987, the owner’s address for the said land cadastre was registered as “F during the time of war.”

B. As to the instant land, the Plaintiff indicated as D, among the cadastral source map drawn up in around 1913, that the said part of the said land was “D.” (C) as to the instant land, the Plaintiff: (a) succeeded to the instant land in succession after G’s death; and (b) succeeded to the said land solely by an external grandchild; (c) on March 29, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that C purchased the said land from C; and (b) filed a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration against C; and (c) in the said lawsuit, the Defendant (C) performed the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant land to the Plaintiff on March 29, 2014.

‘The ruling of recommending reconciliation' became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the judgment on the previous defense of the merits, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of ownership on behalf of C in order to preserve ownership of the instant land in the name of C, the Defendant asserted that there is no benefit to the Plaintiff to seek confirmation of ownership of the instant land against the Defendant, since the registered titleholder is “D” on the land cadastre of the instant land.

A lawsuit seeking confirmation of the ownership of land against the State is when there is no unregistered titleholder on the register of land, or when the registrant is unknown, or when there are special circumstances, such as denying ownership by a third party who is a registered titleholder, and continuously claiming ownership by the State, there is benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649 delivered on September 15, 1995, etc.). Meanwhile, the amended Cadastral Act (amended on December 31, 1975, hereinafter “Revised Cadastral Act”).