1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 16, 1931, 1931, the area was changed to 608 square meters (60,298 square meters) on November 57, 1994. Meanwhile, the said divided J Forest No. 13 square meters was divided into 13 square meters on May 14, 194, and the said divided J Forest No. 13 square meters was divided into 13 square meters on May 14, 194.

B. On April 28, 1995, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on December 20, 1931 with respect to 1/2 shares of H 57,198 square meters of forests and fields H 57,198.

C. On February 28, 1964, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on February 1, 1964, with respect to L 12,7,300,000 L 16.

Of the forest land stated in the above paragraph (c) above, three group six maps were divided into F on December 5, 1967 (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) upon the request of the Defendants, and the registration of transfer of ownership stated in the purport of the claim in the Defendants’ name (hereinafter “the registration of transfer of ownership”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2-7, 11-14 evidence, Eul 1-5, 8, 10, 11 (including paper numbers), fact-finding inquiry inquiry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the forest land of this case was divided into L, even though it was divided into H at Sih, and that the forest land of this case was forged or erroneously entered in the forest register as if it were divided into L, and that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendants, or that the Defendants divided the forest land of this case, part of Sih at Sih-si, into their own L and completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case, and sought cancellation as a claim for removal of interference based on ownership

However, the fact that the forest of this case was divided upon the request of the defendants who purchased L at Siung-si is as seen earlier, and there is no counter-proof otherwise. In accordance with the plaintiff's above assertion, how the forest of this case is in H.