1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant real estate was owned by C, the decedent of the Plaintiff, and C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on December 31, 2015, and the Plaintiff, who is a wife of C, succeeded to the said real estate.

However, in the registry of the real estate of this case, only the owner’s name C and address are recorded, and the above address is inconsistent with C’s resident registration card, and thus, C and the deceased on the above registry were not recognized as the same person, and thus, they did not register inheritance under the Plaintiff’s name

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant to verify that the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine as the confirmation judgment in order to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable and dangerous.

Any third party, other than the State, who asserts that he/she is a legitimate owner of the land for which ownership transfer registration is made, shall obtain a judgment against the title holder of the registration to confirm his/her ownership, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State.

A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit of confirmation only in extenuating circumstances, such as denying the ownership of a third party who is the registered titleholder and asserting that the State is the ownership of the State.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633 Decided October 15, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 94Da39123 Decided May 9, 1995, etc.) B.

The indication of the deceased's registration record and the indication of the basic certificate shall be different from that of the registered titleholder.