1. The plaintiff's action against the Republic of Korea shall be dismissed by an exchange change in the trial;

2.In the trial, the trial shall be held.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 28, 1911, C was subject to assessment of B maintenance 324 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The land of this case was classified as a grave site, and its category was changed to October 5, 1926.

C. C died on March 12, 1951, and Defendant A, the grandchild, solely inherited his property.

In the land cadastre of this case, only the owner C’s address was written “D”, but was corrected on September 23, 2016, upon Defendant A’s application for rectification of the address.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit against the defendant is lawful

A. Even if the Plaintiff alleged in his claim against Defendant A, the heir of C, was awarded a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration, the registration of ownership preservation cannot be conducted in C in the future because the address of the registered titleholder was omitted in the land cadastre. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Republic of Korea by subrogation on the premise of completing the registration of ownership transfer in the future.

B. The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation and the determination by the confirmation judgment is the most effective and appropriate means in order to eliminate the risk of uncertainty when the plaintiff's legal status is at risk.

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

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633 Decided October 15, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 9 May 9, 1995.