소유권확인청구
1. It shall be confirmed that each real estate listed in the separate sheet is owned by the plaintiff;
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. According to the Forest Survey Report on the Gan-gun B prepared under the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Investigation of Forest Areas and Areas in the Japanese War, D, who had resided in the Gan-gun B, is indicated as the owner of the forest land in this case. (b) After division and administrative district name change, area conversion registration, etc., the “5m2 of the land in this case” was divided from the forest in this case, “5m2 of the land in Yan-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-do” and “5m2 of the land in this case was divided on March 21, 1990 into “50m2 of the land in Fan-gun-si” (attached No. 1) and “45m2 of the land in each of the land in the annexed list (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the land in this case”). The owner’s area in the forest in which the land in this case was unregistered is indicated as the “land owner” under Article 74 of the Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records Act.
On May 13, 1948, D, the plaintiff's father, died on May 13, 194, and Ha succeeded to the property solely by the deceased Ha, who was the only inheritor at the time of death on June 12, 1960.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. A person registered as an owner in a forest land survey report under the Decree on the Investigation of Forestry and Land for the Determination of Determination shall be presumed to have been treated as the owner of the land and to have become final and conclusive unless there is any counter-proof that the content of the situation has been changed by the adjudication (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da17127, 17134, Jul. 30, 196). In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1-1 and 3-1-3-2 and the whole purport of the pleadings as to the fact inquiry as to the B pages of this court, in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, ① the address of the Plaintiff’s father-man and D-owner as the owner of the forest of this case is the same as Gyeonggi-do, whereas ② The name of D as the father-man of the Plaintiff’s forest survey report is the same