1. The plaintiff's action against the land subdivision rearrangement association in the defendant Yang Young-gu and against the defendant Jung Ho Construction Co., Ltd.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant Union is a partnership established for the execution of a land readjustment project in the Gyeyang-si, the Gyeyang-si, which was authorized to implement the land readjustment project on June 8, 199, and is the implementer of the land readjustment project in the Gyeyang-si, the Gyeyang-si, which was authorized to implement the land readjustment project

B. On October 8, 1999, the date of authorization of land substitution plan for the land in the land readjustment project area in Gyeyang-si District in Woo-si, the Defendant Union registered the land in this case as owners on the ledger of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and on the register of land allotted by the Defendant Union.

C. On March 14, 2008, the Defendant Company purchased the instant land from the Defendant Partnership, and registered it as its owner on the ledger of land allotted by the Defendant Union for recompense of development outlay on the same day.

On January 12, 2011, the Defendant Mutual Aid Association obtained a change in a replotting plan for a land readjustment project in the Gyeyang-si, Yangyang-si, and announced a replotting plan on the 25th of the same month. The Defendant Mutual Aid Association completed registration of initial ownership on February 28, 201, the receipt No. 16517, 16517, as regards the instant land according to the aforementioned replotting plan.

[Ground of recognition] The items of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 11, 25, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant Union and the lawsuit against the Defendant Company, the claim for confirmation of ownership, and the claim for cancellation of ownership registration, are legitimate

A. On the part of the claim for ownership confirmation ex officio, we examine the Defendants’ interest in the part of the claim for ownership confirmation.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to judge the plaintiff as a confirmation judgment in order to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status unstable danger.

Therefore, even though a lawsuit seeking implementation can be filed, it is not a final solution of the dispute, so there is no benefit of confirmation.

The part of the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership of the land of this case is separate from the above confirmation claim.