1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) purchased the building indicated in the purport of the claim on F’s ground (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) KRW 300,000,000 from the G network G; (c) at the time, the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status as to H who entered into a lease contract with KRW 30,000,000 on the instant building.

On the other hand, G received the instant building from I on April 12, 201 and sold it to the Plaintiff.

G died on December 13, 2017, and the Defendants inherited G. The Defendants asserted that the instant building was owned by the Plaintiff and H.

The Defendants succeeded to the obligations of G under the sales contract between the Plaintiff and G for the instant building. As such, the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for changing the name of the owner of the unauthorized Building Confirmation Board to the Plaintiff.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

The verification agent of an unauthorized building is merely a document to confirm the legal relationship that the building is registered in the ledger of an unauthorized building upon the application of the party seeking the confirmation that the building is issued in return by the administrative agency. It is not possible to change the name of the verification agent. Moreover, even if the name is changed, it cannot be said that the change of the name results in the change of the right to the unauthorized building or the disclosure of the name. Therefore, it does not constitute a dispute over specific legal relations.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking the change of the registered name on the sources of confirmation of the building without permission is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.