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

A. On 1923, the Defendant’s lighting net D was found to have been in the instant forest land by the Gyeonggi-do Governor 8-2 forest E-Gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. The instant forest was divided into KRW 550 square meters in F forest with wife population (attached Form 1) and KRW 45 square meters in G forest (attached Table 2; hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands” in total, following the division, change of the name of the administrative district, conversion registration of the area, etc., and the part of the instant forest was divided into KRW 55 square meters in G forest and field (attached Table 2) at

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on August 12, 1971, the Plaintiffs’ tide He completed registration of preservation of ownership pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969, invalidation) with respect to the land and J land, which is part of the land divided from the instant forest land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6 (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion H purchased the forest of this case and had K develop the forest of this case, a private village, and had K manage the cemetery of the deceased H’s parents in the forest of this case. As such, the deceased H possessed the forest of this case from around 1951 to its own will.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is the heir of the network D, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of completion of the acquisition by prescription on the date of 1971, as much as the inheritance shares in each of the instant forest land, to the Plaintiffs, who are the heir of the network H, as part of the instant forest land.

B. As to whether H from 1951 to 1951 possessed the forest of this case with the intention of owning the forest of this case, the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 8, and the witness Eul's testimony as to the statement of evidence Nos. 3 to 6, the following circumstances, i.e., the hH’s forest of this case, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings.