1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 29, 1923, net PP (the death of September 20, 1962) completed the registration of preservation of ownership as to the forest of 13,785 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) located in North-gu, Northern-gu, Mapo-si (hereinafter “the forest of this case”).

B. On December 29, 1923, the Defendant’s father-in Q (Death on August 3, 194) completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant forest land.

C. On August 18, 1970, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “registration of this case”) by means of sale as of May 5, 1940, pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Land Ownership (amended by Act No. 2111, May 21, 1968; repealed by Act No. 9143, Dec. 19, 2008; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

The Plaintiffs are the successors of the network P.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), each fact inquiry results against the chief of Daegu District Court's Daegu District Court's District Court's Daegu District Court's District Court's District Court's Daegu District Court's District Court'

2. The plaintiffs asserted as the ground of the claim in this case. The defendant was 1929 students and died in 12 years from the time of 1940 and could not purchase the forest of this case from the net Q. However, the defendant completed the registration in the name of the net Q and the registration in this case in an unlawful manner. Thus, the defendant asserted that the forest of this case was owned by the plaintiffs, the heir of the net P, and sought confirmation that the forest of this case was owned by the plaintiffs, and sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration for the registration of this case against the defendant.

3. Ex officio determination of ex officio on the confirmation of ownership, a lawsuit for confirmation shall be permitted when it is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, with the risks of existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and to obtain a judgment of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da54024, Sept. 17, 199).