2. The reasoning for the court to explain this part of the judgment of this court concerning the main defense of Defendant C, C, E, F, G, H, and I is the same as that of “the judgment on the main defense of Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of “the judgment on the main defense of Defendant B, C, D, E, G, H, and I.”

3. Determination as to the claim on part of land Nos. 1 and 2

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Nos. 1 and 2 were assessed against L, M, N, andO’s land owned by the Plaintiff according to the title trust agreement with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Republic of Korea completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the land Nos. 1 and 2 without permission.

(2) In the first place, the Plaintiff, the heir of L, who is the above-mentioned situation, exercised the right to claim cancellation registration against Defendant H in subrogation of Defendant H, in accordance with the title trust agreement with Defendant H, or exercises the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against Defendant Republic of Korea. The Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration in the name of Defendant Republic of Korea with respect to land Nos. 1 and 2

(3) Preliminaryly, Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for compensatory damages resulting from nonperformance of the duty to register cancellation.

(4) The second preliminary decision is sought to the effect that the land Nos. 1 and 2 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is not owned by the Defendant Republic of Korea.

B. (1) The plaintiff has already filed a lawsuit against the defendant Republic of Korea for implementation of the procedure of registration of cancellation of ownership preservation in relation to the land Nos. 1 and 2.