1. The Defendant Republic of Korea confirms that the 152m2 square meters in Yangyang-si is owned by Defendant B.

2. Defendant B shall be the Plaintiff.

1. Claim against the defendant B

A. Indication of Claim: The Plaintiff purchased the land listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and commenced possession from December 31, 1965 at the latest, and completed the prescriptive acquisition as to the instant land on December 31, 1985, 20 years thereafter.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is the nominal owner of the instant land, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on December 31, 1985 with respect to the instant land to the Plaintiff.

(b) Judgment by service: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. 1) Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the address omitted by Defendant B, the owner of the instant land, can be registered, and that there is no interest in confirmation because the instant land is not contested that it is owned by Defendant B. 2) In the event the ownership on the land cadastre of unregistered land was partially omitted and the ownership on the register cannot be specified, the owner cannot make a registration of preservation of ownership by the ledger. Thus, for the purpose of registration of preservation of ownership, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership of the relevant land against the State for the purpose of registration of preservation of ownership

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the land use of the instant land, but did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the land use of the instant land, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the land use of the instant land, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, Defendant B has a benefit to seek confirmation of the ownership of the instant land in the Republic of Korea.

Therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea’s above assertion is rejected.

B. The plaintiff is subrogated to the defendant B in order to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the defendant B.