2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B completed the registration of combination of ownership transfer under No. 14919, June 26, 1981, on the ground of sale and purchase on June 20, 1981, with respect to D forest land No. 24,793 square meters in Gongju-si prior to the division.

B. On September 4, 1986, the forest land prior to the said subdivision was divided into the instant forest land, E-22 square meters of forest land, and F forest land into 240 square meters.

C. Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “registration of ownership transfer”) on June 15, 198 with respect to the Plaintiff’s one-half share out of the instant forest land as the official housing district court No. 11573, Jun. 15, 198, on the ground of the waiver of share on June 13, 198.

Defendant C completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) on the ground of donation on August 18, 1995 with respect to the forest land of this case under the Daejeon District Court’s Gongju Branch on August 29, 1995, received on August 29, 1995.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, inasmuch as Defendant B did not waive 1/2 of the forest land of this case and completed the registration of transfer of the instant share by forging the relevant registration documents, the registration of transfer of the instant land is the invalidation of the cause, and the registration of transfer of the instant land based on the registration of invalidity of cause is also the registration of invalidity of cause, and the registration of transfer of the instant land based on the registration of invalidity of cause is the registration

Defendant B’s each statement of evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 11 as to the completion of the registration of transfer of the instant share by forging documents related to the registration, is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without any need to examine any other point.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.