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

A. The “forest survey report on the area of H of the Gyeonggi-gun in the Japanese colonial era” is written by the J that the Gyeonggi-gun I Forest land of 8 Y (hereinafter “instant forest”) was under the circumstance of the J.

B. However, on January 18, 1960, K completed the registration of initial ownership in the name of K with respect to the forest land in the instant situation, and on May 14, 1968, K completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on May 13, 1968 to the Defendant, who was son on May 14, 1968.

C. On November 19, 1990, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale as of October 18, 1990 to L with respect to each share of 1,653/53,152 out of 2,639 square meters of forest land and G forest land 30,915 square meters (hereinafter “each forest of this case”), which was divided into the instant assessment forest, on November 19, 1990. However, L again completed the registration of transfer on November 28, 2001 to the Defendant on November 1, 2001.

On the other hand, the J died on April 13, 1926, and died on August 20, 1950, and thereafter, N independently inherited the property by his own person, and N thereafter died on January 7, 1982, and on April 30, 1997, the O, his wife, died on April 30, 1997, and finally, the Plaintiff A inherited the property at the rate of 15/36 shares, 11/36 shares, 2 shares, 5/36 shares, 36 shares, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence No. 8 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion is the forest land under the circumstances of J, the fleet of the Plaintiffs, and the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of K and the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant based on the registration of ownership in the name of K with respect to the land of this case is null and void due to the destruction of their estimated capabilities. As such, the Defendant’s assertion on each of the instant forest land divided into the land of this case to the Plaintiffs on the ground of the restoration of the real name in accordance with