1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 1, 1916, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Daegu Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) was divided into 488 square meters (hereinafter “D land”), E former 72 square meters (hereinafter “E”) and 724 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”).

B. On October 10, 1910, the land cadastre of D land was assessed by F on October 10, 1910, and was written by G on June 23, 1914 as transfer of ownership. G was written as owner in each land cadastre of E and this case’s land cadastre.

C. On June 14, 1917 with respect to D land and E, the name correction registration was made with “I located in H” on June 14, 1917, but the said G name remains as to the instant land.

On April 1, 1951, I, the plaintiff's reference, died on April 1, 1951, succeeded to I's property as the family heir by himself.

E. At present, the instant land is unregistered.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. In a case where the acquisition by prescription is completed due to the possession of unregistered land by the State for twenty (20) years, the owner of the unregistered land cannot be deemed to be in the status of exercising ownership against the State due to the relationship with which the State bears the obligation to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the ownership transfer. Moreover, it does not lead to a change in such status on the ground that he/she is given judgment on ownership

Therefore, under such circumstances, the owner’s seeking confirmation of ownership of the land against the State is bound to be considered to have an intention to dance, and thus, there is no legal interest to obtain a confirmation judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da13480 delivered on June 9, 1995). B.