2. Defendant D, E, F, G, H, I, J,Y, Z, K, L, M, N,O.

A. As to the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation against the Defendant Republic of Korea as the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the Defendant Republic of Korea did not have a register on the said land, but the Plaintiff’s paper is written as the owner on the land cadastre, and the Defendant Republic of Korea did not deny its ownership, therefore, the instant lawsuit asserts that 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.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff’s land cadastre as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 1934. The Plaintiff’s land cadastre as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 1934. The Plaintiff’s land cadastre as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, and the Defendant’s Republic of Korea did not assert ownership of the said land. As such, the instant lawsuit seeking ownership confirmation against the Defendant Republic of Korea is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s land cadastre as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 1934. As such, the instant lawsuit seeking ownership confirmation against the Defendant Republic

2. Claim against the remaining Defendants

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Defendant S: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

C. The remaining Defendants: Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)