2. The remainder against the Defendants by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

A. The Republic of Korea: (a) the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s ownership on December 20, 1984 under the Plaintiff’s name on January 24, 1996.

B. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of H on November 21, 2003 with respect to D and F land; the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant B on September 27, 2013; and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant C on January 14, 2011 with respect to E land.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 8, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of the claim for confirmation of ownership is lawful or not, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendants, who are the registered titleholders of each of the instant lands, as to the ownership of the Plaintiff, etc., but the lawsuit for confirmation is permitted when it is the most effective and appropriate means to fundamentally resolve the dispute. The Plaintiff seeks to implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name, as in the case of the Defendants. The separate claim for confirmation of ownership of each of the instant lands cannot be the direct means to resolve the dispute in a valid and appropriate manner, and thus, is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Determination on the claim for performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration

A. The land prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion is owned under the circumstances of the deceased I, and the land prior to the instant partition is attached to the name of the Plaintiff, etc. on January 24, 1996 after receiving the inheritance prior to the transfer.