1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff and Native C were jointly owned by acquiring the land of this case from the parents. On January 23, 1963, when applying for registration of preservation of ownership as the receipt No. 302 on January 23, 1963, the plaintiff's address was erroneously stated as "No. YB."

Accordingly, the plaintiff was decided to dismiss a registration officer's application for registration of correction of indication of the registered titleholder.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant that the instant land share is owned by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. If a claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State of the relevant legal doctrine is unregistered and the land is not registered in the land cadastre or forest land cadastre or forest land cadastre does not identify who the registrant is, if the presumption of right is not recognized in the entry of the owner of the land cadastre or forest land cadastre for unregistered land or forest land cadastre, or if there are special circumstances, such as the State continuously asserting ownership while denying the ownership of a third party registered or recorded, the benefit of confirmation exists.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da45944, Nov. 11, 2010). On the other hand, where there are errors or omissions in the name, address, resident registration number, etc. of a registered titleholder stated in the register, a correction is made without changing the identity of the person entered in the registration titleholder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da33214 delivered on April 12, 1996). Accordingly, in a case where a registration of land has been made, the entry of the holder of a title on the registry does not coincide with the actual entry of the holder of a title on

Even if the identity of personality is recognized, it is possible to register the change of indication of the registered titleholder, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation against the State on the actual ownership.

(Supreme Court Decision 94Da36360 Decided June 13, 1995, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da230815 Decided October 27, 2016) B.

In the case of this case, the land of this case shall be sprinked.