1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 1995, the Plaintiff asserted that, around the Namyang-si, Dongyang-si, the Choyang-si, as the actual owner of B forest land No. 10,314 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant, which had been completed against the Defendant with co-inheritors, but the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered.

(J) The judgment of the previous suit in this case was finalized on November 7, 1996. The above judgment became final and conclusive on November 7, 1996.

B. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming that “The deceased C, not the Defendant, is the actual owner of the instant land, and thus, succeeded to the status of the heir via the deceased C, the network D, the network E, and the network F, has ownership, and accordingly, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant should be invalidated and cancelled.”

【Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is related to the same subject matter as the judgment in the previous suit of this case which became final and conclusive against the plaintiff, and as long as the judgment in the previous suit of this case has already become final and conclusive to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit of this case is also limited to the subject matter of this case

(1) In the lawsuit of this case, the Plaintiff appears to have asserted that “the registration of initial ownership by the Defendant is null and void due to the act of anti-social order.” However, this is merely a ground before the closing of argument in the previous suit of this case, and thus there is no difference in its conclusion in its conclusion since the interruption effect pursuant to res judicata has occurred.” Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the judgment of this case differs from the text of the judgment of this case and the phrase of the purport of the claim of this case, so it does not affect the res judicata effect of the judgment

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. Conclusion.