1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except in the following cases: “Judgment on the cause of the claim” No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 4 of the court of first instance No. 4; and therefore, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

In order for the Plaintiff to seek the cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership or the transfer of ownership completed under the name of the Defendants against the Defendants, the Plaintiff should first actively assert and prove that the Plaintiff had the title to request the cancellation thereof. If it is not recognized that the Plaintiff has such title, the Plaintiff’s claim may not be accepted even if the registration of invalidation for the registration of preservation of ownership or the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants was to be cancelled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da35128, Oct. 9, 2008; 2004Da5044, Sept. 28, 2005). In light of the above legal principles, in order to accept the Plaintiff’s claim in the instant case, the forestry book for the first real estate (No. 3-1-6, No. 1, No. 3-6, and hereinafter “instant forestry book”).

)이 복구된 적이 없는 대장이거나, 복구되었다고 하더라도 ‘일제 강점기’ 또는 ‘1975. 12. 31. 법률 제2801호로 전문 개정된 지적법 시행 이후’ 복구되어 임야대장의 소유자란 기재에 권리추정력이 있다고 볼 수 있는 경우에 해당하여야 하고, 이 사건 임야대장에 사정인으로 기재된 K과 원고의 조부(祖父) 망 K이 동일인이라는 사실이 인정되어 원고에게 피고들 명의의 소유권보전등기 또는 소유권이전등기의 각 말소등기를 구할 수 있는 권원이 인정되어야 할 것이다. 살피건대, 갑 제3호증의 1의 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 임야대장에는 K이 1920.(대정 9년 12. 6. 제1부동산을 사정받았다고 기재되어 있는 사실, 위 임야대장에 복구사실이 기재되어...