1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The 5th unit of the 12th unit of the 5th unit of the forest land located in Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “the forest before the land restoration”) was originally owned by the Plaintiff’s wife B.

B. On October 15, 1964, the Plaintiff purchased forest land from B prior to its cadastral recovery from KRW 500,000.

C. However, while performing cadastral restoration, the Defendant arbitrarily changed the parcel number and land register of the forest land before cadastral restoration into one thousand nine - one - one - one - one - one - another 7 - one - one - another (85,983 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) (hereinafter “the instant forest”) and completed registration of preservation of ownership, such as the written purport of the claim

Therefore, registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is invalid because it is a registration of invalidation without any cause, and the plaintiff has a right to claim registration of transfer of ownership in relation to the forest land before cadastral restoration, and thus, he/she seeks cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in lieu of B

2. Determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserted that the forest was owned by the Defendant before the cadastral restoration in 1993, and sought the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant, and at the same time filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the Plaintiff’s ownership ownership (Sacheon District Court 93Gadan1100). On July 14, 1993, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that “The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is the same as the previous forest before the cadastral restoration, and it is insufficient to recognize that the number of the forest was owned by B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”

(2) The Plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court (Sacheon District Court 93Na3985) dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 19, 1993, on the grounds that “The Plaintiff’s partial evidence, consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the forest was owned by B before the land restoration, and that the said testimony was changed to the forest of this case as a result of the cadastral restoration, and the witness E, F, and G’s testimony are difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.”

The plaintiff appealed against this, but the Supreme Court (94Da3643) also decided on 194.