A. The forest land of this case is indicated as being under the circumstances of the plaintiffs, who have an address in H, i.e., the forest land of this case in the Japanese occupation surveying department.

B. The life-sustaining son of K (the life-sustaining J, the death of May 10, 1942) led to N (the life-sustaining M, the death of May 10, 1943) (the life-sustaining M, the death of May 16, 1918), and the plaintiffs are N' children, and the defendant D is K's birth.

C. On August 13, 1965, Defendant D completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of this case”) in the name of Suwon District Court, Leecheon District Court, Leecheon District Court, No. 8500, August 13, 1965, as to the forest of this case, Defendant D completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of this case”).

Defendant E, F,O, and P completed the registration of ownership transfer of the above forest on November 22, 1983 by the above registry office No. 2035 on November 22, 1983 (hereinafter “instant joint ownership registration”).

E. From the time of the registration date of the above transfer, the above limited persons were transferred the above forest from Defendant D to Qm, and used as a final mountain of Qm. At the same time, O among the limited persons was killed on July 18, 1993, and P on March 11, 198.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-8 evidence (including more than one number), Eul 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the whole purport of the argument (the actual contents of the argument), but the service by publication)

2. Determination

A. (i) The presumption of registration of initial ownership and registration of initial ownership is broken if a person other than the title holder of the registration of initial ownership is found to have received an assessment of the pertinent land, and thus the registration is null and void, unless the title holder proves that he/she has received specific succession acquisition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da16247 delivered on June 28, 1996). According to the premise fact, the registration of this case in Defendant D’s name is null and void because the person under the circumstances of the forest of this case is one of the real names of the forest of this case. Unless there are special circumstances, the registration of this case’s combination of oil of this case is null and void.