1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The real estate Nos. 1 through 5 of the real estate indicated in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion is land CA, and the 6 real estate indicated in the attached list is land under circumstances of D, and the Plaintiff is the heir of the network C and the network D.

The Defendants, despite being the Plaintiff’s prior consideration, completed the registration of initial ownership relating to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, such as the purport of the claim, and thus, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of initial ownership preservation to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. As long as there exists an heir of the title holder of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the presumption of the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendants was broken. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants’ registration of ownership preservation on each real estate listed in the separate sheet is invalid, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obliged to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership preservation.

B. As to the real estate Nos. 1 through 5 listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the forest land No. 1”), the Defendant Gyeonggi-do purchased the forest land No. 1 in this case for seven years (1932) and completed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer. The Defendant Gyeonggi-do did not complete the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer. The registration of ownership preservation was completed as a means of recovery, or it was occupied as the owner’s intention from December 31, 1963, when the registration was completed, since the acquisition of the registry or the prescription of possession was completed and the registration that conforms to the substantive relationship was effective.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 1 through 19, Defendant Gyeonggi-do established the Gyeonggi-do Forest Environment Research Institute (former Gyeonggi-do Forest Environment Research Institute) in order to take over several parcels of state forests from the Japanese Dokdo governor around 1924 and manage them as Dok-do forests. ② Afterward, Defendant Gyeonggi-do purchased private forests adjacent to Dok-do forest for about 10 years from around 1930 to around 1939.