2. The plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

3...

A. From August 3, 1984, the forest land of this case has been registered under the name of the deceased I. The forest land of this case has been registered.

B. On the other hand, the deceased J died on January 10, 2015 as the relationship that was living in the village such as the deceased I, and its heir is the plaintiffs who are their children.

The deceased I died on October 20, 2001, and there are the defendants who are their spouses or children.

The Defendants’ inheritance shares are 3/11, Defendant D, E, F, and G, respectively. 2/11.

C. At present, the instant forests and fields have a grave, such as the Plaintiffs’ increased parents.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 6, and 7 evidence (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that, around April 1994, the deceased father of the plaintiffs purchased the forest of this case from the deceased deceased I of the defendants, and therefore, the deceased J has occupied and used the forest of this case in peace and openly with the intent of ownership for at least 20 years from April 1994 to April 30, 201. Thus, the defendants, the deceased I's heir, are obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the forest of this case to the plaintiffs, who are the deceased J's heir in proportion to their respective inheritance shares.

B. Determination 1) As to whether or not the plaintiff's father (the father's deceasedJ around April 1994) purchased the forest of this case from the deceased I of the defendant's decedent, the statement of No. 3 and the testimony of the witness of the first instance court is not trustable, and the testimony of the witness of No. 4 and No. 5 and the witness of the first instance court is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, there is no sales contract between the deceased J and the deceased I as follows, which is acknowledged by the overall purport of the statement and the argument of No. 1.