1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On January 4, 1996, the Plaintiff agreed with Nonparty C to purchase approximately KRW 14,046 of approximately KRW 14,046 of approximately KRW 561,00,000 among approximately KRW 14,846 of the forest land in the wife population D (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) and agreed with C to sell the building of this case, which is not unregistered to the Plaintiff, without being paid the purchase price separately, in addition to the above KRW 561,00,000,000.

B. After paying the above purchase price, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 13, 1996 as to shares of 46,348/48,992 of the forest of this case. On May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid in a public auction and completed the registration of ownership transfer on shares of 2,644/48,992, which are the remainder of the forest of this case.

C. On November 6, 2002, the instant forest was divided from the instant forest on November 6, 2002, and the instant building was constructed with the forest land and the forest adjacent thereto as the site after the division.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 8, Gap evidence No. 6, the video, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Judgment on the claim for ownership confirmation

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is to seek confirmation of ownership of the instant building against the Defendant.

B. We examine ex officio the determination as to whether there exists a benefit of confirmation, and in a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger, apprehensions, and risks (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). As such, there is no circumstance to acknowledge that there is a dispute over the ownership of the building of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the part claiming ownership confirmation in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Determination as to the remainder of the grounds for the claims.