2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On August 30, 2004, Plaintiff A acquired ownership of each of the 1/2 shares of the 1/2 shares of the forest land D (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, (hereinafter “the forest of this case”).

B. At the time when the plaintiffs acquired ownership of the forest of this case, the forest land register and the area adjacent to the real estate registration were 78,942 square meters.

C. On January 27, 2016, Defendant Mysan-gun notified the Plaintiffs of the fact that “The area of the instant forest is 28,152 square meters, and the error indicated as 78,942 square meters in the forestry map is likely to be managed as the land subject to the correction of registered matters under Article 84 of the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data and Article 94 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.” The Plaintiffs notified the Plaintiffs of the fact that “The Plaintiffs cooperate with the correction of registered matters

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, gist of the plaintiffs' assertion in the whole argument

A. Even if the forest land of this case is not subject to the correction of registered matters, it is illegal for the Defendants to regard the forest land of this case as subject to the correction of registered matters and make such indication in the forest register and manage it as subject to the correction of registered matters

As a result, the Plaintiffs suffered damages that are unable to exercise their ownership as to 50,340 square meters (78,492 square meters - 28,152 square meters) of the forest of this case from among the forest of this case, and thus, the Defendants shall compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred thereby.

(hereinafter referred to as “main assertion”). (b)

Then, even if there exists a ground for correction of registered matters with respect to the area of the instant forest, the Plaintiffs, due to negligence by a public official in charge of the Defendants, who neglected to manage the area of the instant forest, calculated the purchase price and acquired ownership based on the belief that the area of the instant forest is 78,492 square meters, and thereby, incurred losses in further payment of the purchase price equivalent to 50,340 square meters in the instant forest.

(hereinafter referred to as "preliminary assertion"). (c)