1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2006, Nonparty B, C, and D purchased from Nonparty E an amount of 135,847 square meters of forest land in North-gu, Northern-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Nonparty E in the amount of two billion won.

(hereinafter referred to as the sale of this case; however, the purchaser entered the sales contract of this case in D).

On February 8, 2006, the head of Si/Gun/Gu shall make the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the National Land Planning Act) on the real estate of this case around February 8, 2006

) Under the prescribed urban management planning, a certificate of land use planning (hereinafter “certificate”) was issued to the effect that the specific use area constitutes “management area, agricultural and forest area,” “tourism and resort development promotion district,” “Class II district unit planning zone,” and “district unit planning zone”.

C. On March 3, 2006, No. 17356 received on March 3, 2006, B entered 135,847, and 41,322/135,847 of the share of the real estate of this case, C entered into the registration of co-owner's share transfer on the ground of the sale of this case with respect to the share of 62,152/135,847 in the name of G lending the name of non-party G, and D entered into the registration of co-owner's share transfer on the ground of the sale of this case.

At the time of the instant sale, the instant real estate constituted “agricultural and forest area, control area, conservation forest (production), and quasi-contained forest” under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

E. When issuing the instant confirmation letter of land use planning of the instant real estate by a public official affiliated with the issuing authority of the instant land use planning confirmation (e.g., North Korea Office) indicated “tourism and recreation development promotion district” and “Class II district unit planning district” which do not fall under the instant real estate, which is due to the fact that the boundary line between the instant real estate and nearby real estate was partially overlap.

F. B died, and the Plaintiff is the mother of B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.