1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the court stated the following precedents at the end of the fifth part of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this is cited by applying the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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 denying the ownership of a third party who is a registered titleholder.

According to Article 87 subparagraph 4 of the Spatial Data Construction, Management, etc. Act, a creditor may subrogate an application to be filed by a landowner who is a debtor in order to preserve his/her own claim, but may not apply for the correction of registered matters in the cadastral record under Article 84 of the same Act by subrogation.

If part of the entry on the land cadastre is omitted, it is difficult to apply for registration of preservation of ownership based on the land cadastre because the registrant cannot be identified. The creditor of the landowner on the land cadastre cannot correct the registered matters on the land cadastre in subrogation of the landowner. Thus, the creditor of the landowner on the land cadastre should be deemed to have a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State by subrogation of the landowner for application for registration of preservation of ownership

(Supreme Court Decision 2018Da24246 Decided May 16, 2019). As such, the Defendant’s appeal against the Plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.