1. He/she confirms that the land size of B 136 square meters in Jeju-si is the Plaintiff’s ownership;

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 18, 1913, the land cadastre B of Jeju-si (hereinafter “instant land”) was assessed on October 18, 1913 in an unregistered state, and the former land cadastre does not contain an address other than the Chinese name.

B. The Plaintiff’s Cho Jae-tae had his permanent domicile in the Ein and Jeju City F on February 8, 1941 at the place where the Plaintiff’s Cho Jae-tae was a certified copy.

C. After having succeeded to Australia by South Korea, the plaintiff succeeded to Australia on January 13, 1949, and the plaintiff succeeded to Australia.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the court on this safety defense is based on the safety defense that the defendant did not dispute the fact that the owner of the land of this case was the nominal owner of the land of this case, or did not assert that the land of this case was owned by the State.

On the other hand, the defendant denies the identity of the situation titleholder and the plaintiff Cho Jong-tae, on the ground that the situation titleholder and the plaintiff Cho Jong-tae are different. The defendant denies the identity of the situation titleholder and the plaintiff Cho Jong-tae. The relevant public records, such as land cadastre, etc. on the land of this case, do not contain any additional items to recognize the identity, except for the Chinese name. If such situation exists, the plaintiff, through this lawsuit, has no way to register the ownership of the land of this case in the name of the plaintiff Cho-tae's heir without obtaining confirmation that the land of this case is the ownership of the plaintiff Cho-tae's heir. Thus, there is a benefit to confirm that the land of this case is the

Therefore, it is difficult to accept this safety defense that there is no interest in dispute.

3. According to the judgment on the cause of the claim, and according to the above facts, C as the owner in the old land cadastre of the instant land is different from “H” from the Plaintiff’s Chinese name when comparing it with D.

However, each of the evidence mentioned above, and Gap No. 4.