1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 25, 201, the Plaintiff purchased the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Park 347 square meters and its ground buildings. On the ground that the said building, which is a State-owned land adjacent to the said building (hereinafter “instant 1”) and the E large 26 square meters (hereinafter “instant 2”), the Plaintiff was subject to the imposition of indemnity on the ground that he/she committed the instant 26 square meters. On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant and the Republic of Korea for 33/6 shares out of the instant 1 land, and for 15/26 shares out of the instant 2 land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

B. On September 17, 2015, Defendant B entered into a sales contract with Defendant Republic of Korea for 10/66 shares of the instant land and for 0.16/26 shares of the instant two land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of transfer of each share ownership.

C. However, the instant sales contract was concluded by a free contract on the ground that there is a building owned by the Defendant B, which possessed the land of this case 1 and 2, which is a state-owned land. Since there is no building owned by the Defendant B on the ground of the said land, and there is a concern over dispute due to the boundary of the cadastral non-conforming land, it is in violation of Article 40(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act which prohibits the private contract in such a case, and since the ownership of 0.16/26 out of the instant land falls short of land, the instant sales contract is null and void. Accordingly, the instant sales contract is confirmed, and it is confirmed that Defendant B acquired the share of the instant 1 and 2 and prevented the entry

2. The Defendants’ determination as to the instant safety defense was based on the safety defense that the Plaintiff’s claim did not have any interest in confirmation, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have an impact on the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status due to the instant sales contract, not the parties to the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiff’s claim was related to the passage of the land 1 and 2.