1. Defendant B, C, and D shall make on December 2, 2018 with respect to each of the 3/11 shares of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Claim against Defendant B, C, and D

(a) Description of claims: as shown in the reasons for the claims and the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment deemed confession: Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The column for ownership of the land ledger of each real estate indicated in the separate sheet prepared at the Japanese occupation point of recognition shall be indicated as being received by E on June 13, 1914.

E’s address is a disturbance.

The plaintiff's lighting F shall be the same as E and name under the above circumstances.

The legal domicile of the Plaintiff’s Cho Dong-do, Chungcheongbuk-do, G.

Attached Form

It is written to the effect that the entry in the land ledger of paragraph 2 real estate is not clear, but it is stated to the effect that “I” having an address in H was “transfer of ownership in 1965 by Act No. 1657.”

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1-2 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings. (b) The defendant Republic of Korea asserts to the effect that there is no benefit in confirmation since the defendant Republic of Korea does not deny the ownership of the person under the above circumstances, on the grounds that the registered name in the registry is indicated as E (hereinafter “E”), and that there is no benefit in confirmation.

In a case where the portion omitted in the indication of the owner on the land lot is not possible to specify the owner on the register, the owner is unable to register the preservation of ownership on the register, so there is a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State in order to register the preservation of ownership. In a case where the State denies that the nominal owner and the decedent on the register are the same person and contests over the ownership, there is a benefit to confirm ownership against the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2018Da24246, May 16, 2019; 9Da34390, Jul. 10, 2001). The instant land is unregistered, and only the name of the one who is the nominal owner on the land register, and is the one who is the one who is the nominal owner on the land register.