A. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport stated that C, which has a domicile in Yangyang-gun C, was under the assessment of 2 forest land E (hereinafter “forest land under this case”) in Yangju-gun E, Yangyang-gun, which was prepared during the Japanese occupation occupation period.

B. After cadastral recovery, each forest land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) was classified as “the forest of this case” and the registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name was completed as indicated in the order on April 11, 191.

C. On February 26, 1926, D, the Plaintiff’s fleet, died on February 26, 1926, and F, as the Australia’s heir, succeeded to his own property as the Australia’s heir. F, on September 25, 1950, died on his own property as the Australia’s heir. G, on March 29, 198, died and his children, including the Plaintiff, jointly succeeded to his own property.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. A person registered as an owner in the Land Survey Book or Forest Survey Book of the relevant legal principles or in the Forest Survey Book shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive, inasmuch as there is no reflective evidence, such as that the assessment was changed by an adjudication, etc., and thus, the land should be acquired in a timely manner, and if it is found that a person other than the title holder of the preservation registration was under the assessment of the relevant land

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence as seen earlier and the results of the fact-finding on the head of H and Dong, D, the Plaintiff’s fleet, was a person who had a permanent domicile in Goyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do (after its change of administrative district, the Seongbuk-gu Seoul J) and was alive for up to 1926 years, after the forest situation, since the forest condition was 1926, and F, the family heir F and F continued to have the same permanent domicile; and G’s children, including the Plaintiff, were born at the above domicile.