1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the real estate indicated in [Attachment 2] List of Real Estate (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed B (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the deceased died on December 14, 2005, and the Plaintiff and the Appointed succeeded to the instant land by their respective shares in [Attachment 3] shares.

Plaintiff

In addition, the designated parties refuse the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case to the pertinent registry office after they filed an application for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of inheritance. Thus, the Defendant seeks confirmation of the joint ownership of the Plaintiff and the designated parties.

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the interest of confirmation is deemed unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case did not have the interest of confirmation.

A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered, and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, and there is a benefit of confirmation only in special circumstances, such as the State continuously denies the ownership of a third party who is a registered titleholder, and the State continues to assert ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817 delivered on July 25, 1995). In full view of the health care room, Gap evidence Nos. 31 and 33, and the overall purport of pleadings, the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the register of the land of this case under the name of "B", as well as the land cadastre of this case, the registration of "B" is entered as the owner. Meanwhile, even though the defendant did not deny the ownership of the title holder on the register of the land of this case, it is recognized that the defendant did not assert that the land of this case is owned by the defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant for confirmation of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

The Plaintiff is selected on August 9, 2016, after the date of closing the argument in the instant case.