1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Among the lawsuits of this case, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of ownership is respectively.

1. Of the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiffs sought to confirm that the land of this case is owned by the plaintiffs while seeking the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership preservation in the name of the defendant as to the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "land of this case") against the defendant by the lawsuit of this case as to the part concerning the plaintiffs' claim for ownership confirmation. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the part concerning the plaintiffs' claim for ownership confirmation is unlawful because there is

On the other hand, the claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is a case where the land is unregistered and its registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or where there are special circumstances, such as denying the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of the registration and continuing to claim state ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817, Jul. 25, 1995). Moreover, the lawsuit for confirmation is recognized as a case where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the legal status of the plaintiff as a confirmation judgment to eliminate the anxiety and risk when the legal status of the plaintiff is uneasible and dangerous, and thus, the lawsuit for confirmation is not a final solution of the dispute, and thus there is no benefit in confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). The health class returned to the instant case, and the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant, who is the titleholder of the instant land, is the owner of the instant land and sought the cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation, and accordingly, they may apply for the registration of ownership preservation based on the said final judgment (Article 65 subparag. 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act). Accordingly, the part of the Plaintiffs’ claim for ownership confirmation is not a final method of resolution of disputes, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.