1. Defendant Republic of Korea confirms that the 625 square meters of a cemetery Kimcheon-si E is owned by the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and D three persons (per capita shares).

1. As to the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea, the instant land is assessed against F on January 27, 1913, on the land cadastred as unregistered land and its land cadastre (no entry is made in the address) (A2) and H was assessed against the same Dong-gun G land survey division in Kimcheon-gun.

(1) The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 2, 1940 with respect to Kimcheon-si 334, 1940, and the said land is attached to the south of the instant land.

(A7 & 8) The plaintiff J (J, the deceased, the deceased) had a permanent domicile in Suung-gun K, and died on June 7, 1925 at the same time.

(A3-1) The name of the deceased shall not be found in Liber.

(1) On September 2, 1926, the deceased’s property was inherited solely by N, N, and N, N, N, and N, the deceased’s property was inherited solely with the family inheritance. As the N, N, the deceased’s death was unknown without his/her lineal descendant, and the adjudication on adjudication of disappearance was finalized on June 1, 2016 by this Court Decision 2015-Ma285, the deceased’s property was jointly inherited by the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and D, a child of the birth P, the birth (the death of August 25, 1958) (the expiration date of the period of disappearance), and the deceased’s property was jointly inherited by the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and D, a child of the birth P (the death of August 25, 195).

(A) According to the above facts, F of the deceased and the land cadastre shall be the same person, and as long as the defendant Republic of Korea does not register the contents of the deceased’s address in the address column for the owner’s land cadastre, the plaintiff whose heir does not complete the registration of preservation of ownership in the future of the deceased’s heir of the land of this case has a benefit of obtaining confirmation against the defendant Republic of Korea by the judgment on this point. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant Republic of Korea has merit.

2. The plaintiff's assertion as to the claim against the defendant B and D is that the aboveO was missing in Japan around 1945, and O's birth P is actually the same.