1. Defendant Korea’s 45/2340 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet are Defendant B, Defendant C, and 45.45.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in the changed cause of claims; and

2. Defendant Republic of Korea’s determination on Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the Plaintiff should prove whether M, a nominal owner of the land of this case, and N, the Plaintiff’s assertion, should be the same person. If it is proved that the Plaintiff is the same person, Defendant Republic of Korea does not claim ownership of the land of this case, and thus, Defendant Republic of Korea

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 where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the registered titleholder, and the State continues to assert the ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633 Decided October 15, 2009, etc.). We examined the following facts: (a) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should prove whether the Plaintiff is the same person, who is the title of the land of this case, the condition of which the Plaintiff is not registered, and whether the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same person; (b) The above assertion is the assertion that the land of this case is theN ownership of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

In light of the above decision of the Supreme Court, since there is a benefit to confirm that the land of this case in a state of non-registration was owned by N, the plaintiff's prior defense against the defendant's Republic of Korea that has no benefit of confirmation shall not be accepted.

On the other hand, if Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including branch numbers) and the whole purport of the pleading is added to the result of each fact inquiry into the Jeju market by this court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts of the changed cause of claim are stated in the annexed sheet. Thus, the plaintiff's allegation in this part is with merit.

3. Claim against Defendant B, D, and E: by service.