1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The forest land register of 304,364 square meters in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Busan-gun was destroyed, and the cadastral restoration was made on June 30, 1952. The reason for the change in the ownership column in the restored forest land register is the owner restoration, the address is the owner restoration, and the name is the E.

B. Based on the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (amended by Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership”) by the Changwon District Court No. 2878 of Sept. 25, 1971 with respect to the 304,364 square meters of forest land in Gyeongnam-gun, Busan District Court, Busan District Court, based on the aforesaid Act (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

C. C Forest land of 304,364 square meters is divided into several occasions, and is divided into 239,734 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) and F, and G, in June 25, 2013.

On the other hand, E (main family register: H) died on March 22, 1956, and I inherited as Australia.

I died on June 29, 1961, and the plaintiff, K, L, M, N, andO, who is his or her child, succeeded to I.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was made, E and his heir have owned the forest land of this case.

The defendant issued a false guarantee based on the Act on Special Measures and completed the preservation registration of this case by changing the title holder in the forest register to the defendant, even though he did not acquire the forest land of this case from E, I or their successors as an opportunity for their successors to live in the forest and not manage the forest of this case.

Therefore, since the preservation registration of this case is null and void, the plaintiff seeks cancellation of the preservation registration of this case as the heir of the forest of this case.

B. Around 1920, the Defendant’s assertion that the forest land of this case was created as security and was obvious.