beta
Text
1. The Defendants are 2/9 shares of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, C, and D, respectively, with respect to forest land of 14,876 square meters in Gyeonggi-do.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The forest land of this case 14,876 square meters (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) is unregistered and written in the forest survey report prepared during the Japanese occupation occupation period, stating “AB” as its owner, and also written in the forest land register that AB had an address in the “AAri” as its owner.
B. On the other hand, the forest of this case in the current forest register stated that AC is its owner according to the owner restoration on February 22, 1975.
C. (1) AD, which is the evidence of Plaintiff B, C, and D, established a permanent domicile with AE in Gyeonggi-do AF, and established AH, AI, AJ, AJ, K, and AL between wife and AG.
② AH, a South-North of AD, had AM, and had AO, AP, Q, and R. ③ AH, a South-North of AH, had been born with AS, the wife. However, AO died in around 1942. On February 13, 2009, the Government District Court Decision 2007Radan1400, which was declared missing, was deemed deceased on July 27, 1958.
④ Meanwhile, AP, the heir of the Plaintiff A, B, C, and D, the wife, died on April 17, 2009. On June 28, 2010, with respect to AD and its wife, AG, AH, and their wife, and AS, the wife of the Plaintiff A, B, C, and D, the heir, were declared missing on June 28, 2010 and deemed as deceased on July 27, 1958, the expiration date of each missing period. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were to succeed to AD’s property.
The defendants are the successors of AC, and AC is the south of AV, a sentence of AD.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply). Each entry in Eul evidence 1 to 4, and 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 the Forest Survey Book shall be presumed to be the owner of the land in the absence of counter-proof evidence such as the change in the contents of the situation by the adjudication, and the circumstance shall be presumed to have
He returned to the instant case, as seen earlier.