1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Forest Survey Division of the Japanese Occupation Period, the Gyeonggi-do "E" with a domicile in Yangju-gun, Yangju-gun, Gyeonggi-do with respect to the 8,900 forest land (the land in this case) in Yangju-gun, Yangju-gun, Gyeonggi-do (the land in this case), shall be eight years (the 1919

1.6. Circumstances received

B. (1) On October 28, 1994, registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of the Defendant on the remaining-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant land”) with respect to B forest land of 1,983 square meters, which was divided in the 8,900 maps of Yangju-gun, Gyeonggi-do, subject to the conversion of B and unit of area, land category change, administrative district change, etc.

Dor, on the other hand, the old forest register concerning the land of this case after the division of the land of this case does not contain any indication in the owner column.

C. On December 22, 1935, the Plaintiff’s prior heir of “F (F and G)” was H (H, I) and H died on December 2, 1935, and the J (the removal of the family name stated in “L” appears to be a clerical error) succeeded to Australia. On July 17, 1976, the J died and died on July 17, 1976, and became a co-inheritors of the son, the Plaintiff, the son, the son, the son, the married father, the NA N, the O, the deceased on April 15, 199 (the son died first without the heir), M was deceased on April 15, 199 as the husband, the son, the son, and the unmarried son, the son, the son, the son, the son and the unmarried son, the son and the son, the son, the son and the son, the Y.

[Ground of recognition] 1, 3, 5, 6, 9 through 11 of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1 through 4 of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and the result of each fact inquiry into the South-North Jeju market by this court

2. If it is found that E is the same person as the Plaintiff’s prior owner, and there is another person in charge of land assessment, the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership is broken. Therefore, registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name concerning the instant land should be cancelled as a ground invalidation.

As one of the co-inheritors with respect to the instant land, the Plaintiff seeks cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant as an act of preservation of the jointly owned property.

3. Determination A.