1. The defendant received on December 19, 2008 from the Suwon District Court, Songwon District Court, as to the land attached to attached Table 1 from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The C Forest land No. 41, which is the land indicated in the attached Form No. 1, and the “D Forest Land No. 5,” which was divided into the forest land No. 1 and the land No. 2 as indicated in the attached Form No. 2, was under the circumstances of F, i.e., the forest land No.

B. G, the Plaintiff’s father-in-child, was “ Pyeongtaek-si H,” but died on February 9, 1947, and I succeeded to Australia, which was the head of the household, and I died on January 7, 1959 and succeeded to Australia by the adopted Plaintiff.

C. The defendant completed each registration of ownership preservation on December 19, 2008 with respect to the land listed in the attached Form 1, and on the land listed in the attached Form 2, on May 18, 1989.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s attachment Nos. 1 and 2 were the land subject to the Plaintiff’s prior G, the Plaintiff’s prior G, and the Plaintiff succeeded in succession, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant should be cancelled as invalid registration.

B. There is no evidence to recognize the Defendant’s assertion as the same person between F and G as the Plaintiff’s prior owner, the assessment title of the land Nos. 1 and 2, and the land No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet is not the Plaintiff’s land subject to J registration conversion.

3. Determination

A. According to the Plaintiff’s overall purport of evidence No. 3-1 of evidence No. 3 and the fact-finding results and the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff’s protocol No. 1 and No. 2 as well as the Plaintiff’s protocol No. 1 and No. 2 as well as the Plaintiff’s protocol No. 1, and the Plaintiff’s protocol No. 2 as well as the Plaintiff’s protocol No. 1 and No. 2 as well as the Plaintiff’s protocol No. 3 as well as the overall purport of the pleading, the Plaintiff’s protocol No. 1 and No. 2 as well as the Plaintiff’s protocol No. 1 and No. 2 as to the Plaintiff’s protocol

may be recognized as having been born in the court.

In light of these facts and the fact that the address of the title holder is “E” such as the place where the Plaintiff’s lighting G was living, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s lighting is the same as F and the same person who is the title holder.

(b) As to the land listed in the annex No. 1.