1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The land Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case was assessed under the name of “B” on August 27, 1912, and thereafter was unregistered on August 10, 1934, C, and April 19, 1939.

B. On April 19, 1939, the land No. 3 of this case is unregistered land for which ownership transfer registration was made in the name of “A” on April 19, 1939

(that does not appear). [Judgment does not appear in the ground for recognition] . [Ground for recognition] .] The entry in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The land Nos. 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff’s assertion is completed in the name of B and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of C and the Plaintiff clan.

In addition, since the third land of this case was destroyed by the registry, the registration of ownership transfer has been completed on April 19, 1939.

Therefore, it is necessary to seek direct confirmation of ownership against the defendant who is the state.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case can be identified as its owner under the circumstances in the name of B, and the land No. 3 of this case is applied for registration of preservation of ownership directly in the name of the plaintiff clan A, and there is no benefit in confirmation.

B. A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is not unregistered and is not known to the registrant on the land cadastre or forest land cadastre or forest land cadastre, and there is a benefit in confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as continuous assertion of state ownership while the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of registration or registration.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817 delivered on July 25, 1995). In light of the above legal principles, land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is the case where a registered titleholder exists on the registry of “B”. If the registry of land No. 3 of this case was destroyed but the application for registration of recovery was not filed within the prescribed period, registration of preservation of ownership is made in one’s own name, as alleged by the Defendant.