1. (1) In relation to Defendant Republic of Korea, each land from the annexed list is owned by Defendant B.

1. Main claim against the defendant in Korea;

A. (1) around June 20, 1914, Defendant B had an address in the Si/Gun/Dong (former North Korea), and there is sufficient room to view that Defendant B had legal interest in seeking confirmation of ownership of each of the instant lands against Defendant B in order to complete the registration of ownership preservation on each of the instant lands in subrogation of Defendant B, as long as Defendant B had a domicile in the Si/Gun/Gu prior to the division and land category change, and thereafter, the land before the division was divided and again divided over several occasions in 1952 to 2011. However, there is no dispute between the parties. (2) If the personal information of the title holder of the land in the Gu land cadastre is not fully known as above, the ownership holder of the instant land before the division cannot be identified. (3) At present, Defendant Korea-B, including the title holder of the instant land before the division and the identity of Defendant B, as well as the identity of Defendant B, is disputing the facts of the cause of the primary claim of this case.

B. As to this, since the land category of the land before the division of this case was changed to “river” around 1952, Defendant Republic of Korea has been applied to the land before the division of this case and each of the instant land was used as the so-called “public land,” Defendant Republic of Korea asserts to the effect that each of the instant land cannot be the subject of prescriptive acquisition.

However, even though the river has the nature of a public object due to its original form, it is necessary to conduct administrative acts or designate a public area in accordance with laws and regulations with regard to the paper section and the crossing area, but the defendant's Republic of Korea has the purpose and function of the public nature.