1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the forest land of this case, on February 26, 1985, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of sale as of December 2, 1970 under K's name on December 30, 1985, and on December 19, 1987, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of each sale under the defendant's name on December 19, 1987.

B. K died on November 30, 1994, and the rest of the plaintiffs A and their children, who are their spouses, succeeded to K.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiffs asserted that “The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of L with respect to the instant forest is null and void since the broker M forged a sales contract in the name of K, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant is also null and void. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name with respect to the instant forest in question to the Plaintiffs, who are the heir of K. Accordingly, according to the evidence No. 99, the Plaintiff stated “O” in the seller’s column of the sales contract for the instant forest in question and recognized the fact that the seal of “K” is affixed next thereto.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of the statement in the letter Nos. 1 and 2 and the entire pleadings, are as follows: (i) the Defendant holds the original copy of a registration certificate of the forest of this case; (ii) the above registration certificate carries the name of the seller in the seller’s column; and (iii) affix the seal identical to the seal affixed on the instant sales contract; and (ii) the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant sales contract was discovered from the goods of K’s relics; and (iv) if the instant sales contract was forged as alleged by the Plaintiffs, if it is alleged by the Plaintiffs, it does not have any reason to hold the said sales contract, and (iii) K bears the possession of the instant sales contract.