1. Defendant Republic of Korea confirms that the 608 square meters of Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun is owned by Defendant 2 or 71.

2. Defendant 2.

1. As to Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, on the ground that BV, BW’s address or address, which is the owner on the land cadastre of 608m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff filed a claim for ownership confirmation against the Defendant Republic of Korea by subrogationing Defendant 2 or 71, who is the heir of BV and B, and thus, Defendant Republic of Korea has filed a claim for the correction of unregistered land owner’s address to the competent cadastral authority, and therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant Republic of Korea as to the instant land does not have any benefit in confirmation.

B. Registration of preservation of ownership of land may be applied for by a person registered as the first owner in the land cadastre, forest land cadastre or building register, his/her heir, other general successor, a person who proves his/her ownership by a final judgment, or a person who proves his/her ownership due to expropriation (Article 65 of the Registration of Real Estate Act). A claim for confirmation of ownership against the State is unregistered and its land is not yet registered, and it is impossible to identify the title holder or who is the title holder in the land cadastre or forest land register, and there is a benefit in confirmation only in special circumstances, such as continuous assertion of ownership by the State while denying the ownership of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633 Decided October 15, 2009). However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, the land of this case is unregistered, and the land of this case is omitted in the name of BW’s address and BV’s address on the land cadastre and land cadastre’s land cadastre’s land cadastre’s land cadastre’s land cadastre’s land cadastre’s land cadastre is difficult to prove that BW andV is Defendant 2 through 71’s inheritee’s decedent, and thus, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff