(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment made by deeming the relevant provisions as private investors);

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, D, E, F, and G

A. On September 2, 1971, the Plaintiff asserted that he held the title trust of H 7,140 square meters of forests and fields H 7,140 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”). On November 3, 1978, the J succeeded to the respective shares of Defendant C and F, Defendant D 3/18, Defendant E, and Defendant G, respectively.

The Plaintiff terminated the above title trust by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint. As such, Defendant C, D, E, F, and G are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust with respect to each of the above shares out of the forest land in this case.

B. The judgment is not sufficient to acknowledge the title trust of the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the basis of each statement (including each number) of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C, D, E, F, and G is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.