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

A. The investigation report on forest land B in the G-gun of Gyeonggi-do, which is the day for registration of preservation of ownership in the forest environment and the Defendant’s registration of preservation of ownership, is indicated as follows: ① on February 15, 1919, the C grave site was transferred to the cemetery on February 15, 1919 and “B” was the circumstance; ② on December 15, 1918, the C grave site was indicated as being the circumstance by the “State” on December 15, 1918.

Since June 19, 1923, the above D forest has been managed as a permanent state forest.

The Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership as to the real estate in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “land No. 1”) of the attached Table No. 36427, Dec. 27, 1996, which was converted into the area of the above C land. The Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership as to the real estate in paragraph (2) of the same Table converted into the area of the above D assessment land (hereinafter referred to as “No. 2”) by the same registry office on December 4, 1970.

B. On September 14, 1928, the Joseon General Director General was publicly announced as follows: “A decision was made on August 15, 1928 on the part of the ownership of the land 1, 2, etc. in Gyeonggi-do and F was made on August 15, 1928, and a certified copy of the written ruling may be perused by the Forestry Investigation Committee or the Gun Office in the location of the land.”

C. The Plaintiff’s prior G was born in around 1863 in 1950 by G, the Plaintiff’s permanent domicile in the Ha, the G, the G, the G, the G, the G, the G, the G, the G, the G, the G, the G,

I died in around 1982, and the plaintiff is one of his children.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s prior owner filed an objection against “B” against “Defendant,” and that the second land was assessed against “Defendant,” and the Forest Investigation Committee received G’s appeal on August 15, 1928.