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

A. According to the forest survey report on the Gandong-gun Fran-gun, which was made up in the Japanese colonial era, the G 5th 3rd 6th flux 6th Y (53,157 square meters; hereinafter “instant situation land”) stated that the net H and I jointly received an assessment around July 1919. The said land was partially divided on October 5, 1989 and was only 52,345 square meters, and the said land was designated as a reorganization of administrative district on June 11, 2001.

B. Since June 12, 2006, the instant assessment land was subject to registration conversion on the grounds that the area of K forest 51,506 square meters was corrected in Gyeonggi-do, Gwangju-si. At the same time, part of the land was divided into 44,133 square meters of L, M forest, 545 square meters of forest land, and 208 square meters of forest land E (hereinafter “the instant forest land”), and the said K divided into 6,620 square meters of land for factory.

C. Around February 20, 1941, the Plaintiff’s attachment N succeeded to Australia, and the Plaintiff succeeded to Australia on August 21, 1956. D.

Meanwhile, on December 9, 1966, Suwon District Court, Sung-nam Branch of Gwangju District Court, received a registration of ownership preservation on the land of this case under Article 6728, and the network P of the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case due to the inheritance through consultation and division on April 20, 1984. The Defendants shared the forest land shares by receiving the inheritance or inheritance from the deceased P around 1998, and Defendant C owned the land solely on the ground of partition of co-owned property around June 26, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The assessment land of this case, including the Plaintiff’s forest land, included in the instant forest, was initially determined by the Plaintiff’s Madern I, and the Defendant’s registration of preservation of ownership was completed without permission by the Plaintiff’s MaddongO, a protocol of the Defendants, even though the Plaintiff did not dispose of the land to another person. Thus, the aforementioned preservation registration and the transfer thereof are the Defendants