1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 188 square meters and 537 square meters in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, and the Defendants are the successors of P (the instant forest land) of 2,906 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s above land.

B. The instant forest land was expropriated with Q27 square meters divided from the instant forest land indicated in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3.

The land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 was divided. The land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is in the name of Defendant K, and the land listed in the separate sheet No. 3 is in the name of Defendant F, and each ownership transfer registration is completed on December 13, 2004 due to the inheritance by consultation and division on October 9, 2004, respectively, and the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 is in the name of the network P.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4 through 18, Gap evidence 23 and 24 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted 1) on January 7, 1996 in order to secure access roads to the housing of a newly-built farm household, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with respect to 300 square meters (in the land indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purchase part refers to the Plaintiff’s contribution from the Plaintiff’s housing among the land indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and 7 million won was paid as the purchase price on the day when the purchase was executed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a registration of transfer of ownership with respect to co-ownership share of 2,469 square meters (30 square meters, excluding Q2, and Q29 square meters, divided out of the instant forest and land) with respect to co-ownership share of 300 square meters, as indicated in the primary claim.

B. Although the Plaintiff submitted as evidence for the above alleged facts, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the seller’s name on the right-hand side of P is the P’s seal. Meanwhile, according to the result of the appraiser R’s written appraisal, the seller’s “P” and “P” among the above sales contract are the penmatics and network P.