1. The plaintiff (Appointed party)'s rejection of the confirmation claim portion of the lawsuit in this case.

2. The plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 13, evidence 15-2, evidence 15-1, evidence 17-2, evidence 19-2, evidence 19-3, evidence 21-1, evidence 25-1, evidence 25-2, evidence 25-2, evidence 27-2, 3, 4, evidence 33-1, evidence 33-1, evidence 41-2, and evidence 1, evidence 41-2, and evidence 1.

The network M, which was the Australia, had one person, including N, N, N, network P, net Q, network R, Defendant E, network M, and one other.

On the other hand, the deceased on December 17, 1953, and the deceased on December 17, 1953 succeeded to the family head of the network N, a South-North, to the deceased family head.

B. The network N had children of the network T, Defendant F, G, and three others, died on July 17, 1986, the network T died on June 2, 1997, and Defendant D is the child of the above network T.

C. Defendant H is a child of the foregoing networkO that died on February 24, 1949.

The plaintiffs and the designated parties are children of the network P who died at the time of the death of the deceased.

E. Defendant I is a child of the above net Q, who died on December 15, 1979.

F. Defendant J is a child of the deceased deceased R on April 30, 2008.

G. Defendant K is a child of the above network S who died on April 3, 2007.

2. Defendant D, F, and G are lawful of the suit seeking confirmation, and the part on which the Plaintiffs seek confirmation of ownership of the instant real estate is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where the plaintiff's legal status is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehensions and risks when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous, and a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought to claim performance despite the fact that the plaintiff's legal status is not a final solution of a dispute, and therefore there is no benefit in confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da51780 Decided September 26, 2013). Therefore, even in cases where the Plaintiffs asserted that they had ownership of the instant real estate, the reason for the registration of transfer is not a performance suit seeking the registration of transfer of the said real estate, rather than a performance suit seeking the registration of transfer.