A. The Forest Survey Division prepared at the time of the Japanese colonial occupation is indicated as the owner of the forest land E residing in Gyeonggi-gun C (hereinafter “previous land”) in the forest survey division.

B. Since then, Leecheon-gun changed the administrative district to Leecheon-si, and the F Myeon to G Eup, respectively, and the land indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant land”) was divided from the previous land and the land category was changed to the road.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff: (a) had his permanent domicile in the Gyeonggi-do Echeon-gun; and (b) on May 8, 1882, the Plaintiff’s permanent domicile was born on April 16, 1921 after the Plaintiff’s establishment of the JJ at the above permanent domicile.

In addition, the J who inherited H's Australia died on November 17, 1959, and K again inherited Australia. On the other hand, K died on August 22, 1972 after having left the wife L and its own consciousness.

The instant land was restored only after the cadastral record, such as the registry, was destroyed due to the incident of June 25, 196, and the owner was unexploited. However, the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land on June 13, 1996 in accordance with the procedure for acquiring non-owned real estate.

【Partial grounds for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff asserted that the previous land was jointly inherited by the plaintiff, etc. through J and K under the circumstances of the plaintiff's increase and decrease of the plaintiff, and the previous land was jointly inherited by the plaintiff, etc., so the land in this case is owned by the plaintiff, etc., and the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is null and void. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the registration of preservation of ownership in

In this regard, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's expansion of evidence and the name of the H and the name of the circumstances merely prove that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

B. (1) Therefore, we examine whether the owner entered in the previous land survey book and the Plaintiff’s increase in the forest land is the same person.

The plaintiff.