1. The portion on the ship connected in order of each point of the indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the area of G 47,405 square meters in the field of Pakistan.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of H forest in Pakistan-si, and the Defendants are the co-owners of G 47,405 square meters or less of G 47,405 square meters.

(hereinafter referred to as "land only by lot number")

H Forest land is surrounded by land owned by others, including G forest land.

Part of the part on the ship indicated in paragraph (1) of the main text of the G Forest (hereinafter referred to as “instant road”) among the forest land, is a road of six meters wide sealed in asphalt, and can be contributed to H land if it passes through the said road.

G Forest land has three graves for the defendants.

C. From around 2014, the Plaintiff promoted a project to build an apartment-type factory under the name of “J” on the H forest and I forest land, and applied for registration of a factory on the above two land at the time of strike. The Plaintiff was given a disposition to return the land ownership in the access road and the land owner’s failure to submit a written consent.

From January 1, 1983 to December 31, 2012, the Republic of Korea occupied the land of the military unit, including H forest and G forest, as a shooting training site, the military unit’s land was occupied. The present roads of this case were used as access roads by the dynads of the military unit.

The current status of the instant land was the length of the soil of non-packaged, and the Plaintiff performed the asphalt packing work on April 2014.

E. On March 27, 2014, Defendant F received KRW 20 million from K, the actual owner of I forest land, under the premise of future settlement in the future.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7 through 19, Gap evidence No. 3 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination: (1) H forest land is a master land; (2) the Plaintiff’s plan for the use of H forest land; (3) the current status of the instant land was used as an access road for the past 30 years; and (4) the Plaintiff’s use of the current status road as an access road in light of the current status of the Defendants’ G forest use.