1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to confirm that the land of this case is owned by the plaintiff, since the land of this case was expropriated and the compensation for its expropriation was deposited, due to the error in the register on the land of this case, the plaintiff could not receive the compensation for expropriation.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that there is no benefit to the plaintiff to seek confirmation of ownership against the defendant, since the registry and the forest land register has been prepared regarding the land of this case.

2. The claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State as to whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful is not unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit in confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as the State's refusal of ownership by a third party as the registered titleholder, and the State's continued to

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da58738 delivered on December 2, 1994, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the land in this case, it is recognized that the transfer of ownership was completed in the name of A or registered in the owner column of the forest land register, and that the Defendant continued to own the land in this case while denying the ownership of the person who registered or registered the land in this case.

Therefore, it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to seek confirmation of ownership of the instant land against the Defendant, the State, in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.