1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In the Forest Survey Division prepared in the Japanese colonial era, the Gyeonggi-gun C Forest Land 2 Gao-gun 8 (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”) is indicated as the E residing in D was under the circumstances.

B. The cadastral record on the above real estate was destroyed due to the disaster of June 25, 1974 after the recovery of the parcel number and cadastral record. On September 25, 1974, the above F forest land was registered as 12,298 square meters, G previous 1,815 square meters, H 221 square meters, and 555 square meters prior to I (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land,” collectively referred to as “the instant land,” with an index attached when it is individually named), and the Defendant completed the registration preservation on the following grounds: (a) the instant F land following the public notice of non-owned real estate under the State Property Act, which was unregistered; and (b) the remainder of the land, on March 12, 196, each of the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership.

C. (1) On March 20, 1934, the J died and succeeded to the case as a family heir, and on March 20, 193, the K, a family heir, succeeded to the case as a family heir.

(2) The J’s children were L, M, N,O, and A, and K were wife P and children among them, Q, R, and S. However, the remaining persons except A were missing due to the 6.25 incident, and the Suwon District Court Decision No. 2004Ra141 became final and conclusive, and only A remains the inheritor.

A asserts that E, the assessment title of the land before the division of this case, is A, the father of J, and that J was the sole heir of Australia, and that A succeeded to E on the ground that he was the heir of Australia, and that A won a lawsuit against the Defendant for the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant on the land in this case, on the ground that he was the heir of Dongwon District Court No. 2004Kadan6865. However, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant appealed as the father of Suwon District Court No. 2006Na4240, the father of A, the assessment title of the land before the division of this case.