Whether there is any benefit from an administrative agency that refuses an issuance of land cadastre to seek confirmation of the ownership of the land.

The land cadastre is prepared for the administrative convenience of the competent administrative agency, and is irrelevant to the method of public announcement of the legal relationship of the land, and the refusal of the issuance of the land cadastre by the competent administrative agency cannot be deemed as a case where there is a concern for infringement of the right to the land or the legal status of the land, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the land ownership from the relevant administrative agency.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

E-Government

Government's branch court of Seoul and Criminal District Court (74Gahap21) in the first instance court

The plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs confirm that the non-party 1 is the owner of the non-party 1's 15-15-205-13-2, non-party 2's 4/17 shares, non-party 3's 2/17 shares, non-party 4's 2/17 shares, non-party 5's 2/17 shares, non-party 5's 2/17 shares, and non-party 6's 1/17 shares. The costs of the lawsuit are borne by the defendant.

The original judgment is revoked and the purport of the claim.

The plaintiffs' assertion that the above real estate was owned by the non-party 7, and the non-party 7 died on December 31, 1919. The non-party 8's wife was removed on October 19, 192. The non-party 9 was deceased on April 5, 1929. The non-party 10 was deceased on the non-party 4's claim that the non-party 1 purchased the above real estate and the non-party 5's claim that the non-party 1 purchased the above real estate from the non-party 5's land and the non-party 12, the non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 1 and the non-party 5's claim that the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's claim that the non-party 1 were non-party 1 and the non-party 5's claim that the non-party 1 were non-party 1 and the non-party 2's claim that the above real estate were deceased.

Therefore, the plaintiffs would not have an interest in seeking confirmation of ownership of the real estate in this case, such as the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which concluded that the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be dismissed as an unlawful lawsuit, is just and without merit, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)