1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 5, 1974, the Plaintiff donated the 99372m2m2 in Jeonnam Forest land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 12, 1975.

B. On September 2, 1993, Defendant B filed an application for forest land partition with respect to 1025m2 among the above forest land, and this part was divided into 1025m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. Under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (Act No. 4502 of Jan. 1, 1993, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), Defendant B submitted a guarantee of the name of F, G, and H to the Korea Agency in the name of the owner of the instant real estate registered in the forest land register on Jun. 10, 1985, and obtained the confirmation thereof from the owner of the instant real estate from the Ga-gun. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 10, 1985 on December 28, 1994.

On May 23, 1997, Defendant B donated the instant real estate to Defendant C, and Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 4, 1997.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not have the substance as an organization and did not have a legitimate resolution of the general assembly relating to the filing of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. If a natural village as a community of residents living in Dong-ri, which is an administrative district, has a decision-making institution and executive body for its own proper purpose and has an entity as a social organization that independently performs its activities, it shall be deemed that it has the ability to be a party as an unincorporated association under Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da33512, Jan. 29, 199); and in full view of the purport of the arguments written in Gap evidence 10 through 16, the plaintiff is 36 all residents on March 17, 2018.