2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The evidence No. 2 (forest sales contract) is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 4 and the testimony by the witness Q of the first instance trial, and it is not sufficient to admit the authenticity of the evidence as evidence because there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence (In addition, the forest sales contract is not sufficient to recognize that the evidence No. 3, No. 4, and No. 13 and the testimony by the witness of the first instance trial by the witness of the first instance trial has purchased the land of this case from H solely with the entries of No. 4 and the testimony by the witness of the first instance trial. The plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

2. The plaintiff, as to the preliminary claim, was found to have a duty to register the ownership of the land in this case as a result of the court's peaceful possession by the intention to own the land in this case from February 16, 1979 and the acquisition by prescription was completed on February 16, 199. Thus, the defendants, the heir of H, are obligated to register the ownership of the land in this case for the plaintiff who independently succeeded to J, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that J occupied the land in this case from February 16, 1979 to February 16, 199, only the statements and images of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 12, and 13 (including the serial number) and the testimony of the witness of the court of first instance, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Even if J occupied the instant land from February 16, 1979 to February 16, 199, it is difficult to recognize that there had been a sales contract for the instant land between J and H, as seen earlier, as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 13588, Feb. 16, 1979; Presidential Decree No. 10900, Feb. 16, 1978>