1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be admitted if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is expressed in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

The plaintiff and the defendant are two children of D and E.

B. From May 15, 1968, the land of this case was registered as the co-ownership of five persons, including Defendant, G, H, I, and J from May 15, 1968.

C. On September 1, 2008, the apartment land of this case was divided into 51 square meters in Gyeonggi-do and was expropriated in Gyeonggi-do. On May 27, 2013, the apartment land of this case was divided into 14,994 square meters in the name of L, M 16,282 square meters in the name of L, M 16,282 square meters in the name of M 16,282 square meters in the name of I, G, and C forest 5,950 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) in the name of the Defendant, and each registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of J with N forest 3,3

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the mother land of this case was purchased by the deceased P, the descendants of the deceasedO, for the use of the clan’s mountain for the use as the descendants of the deceasedO, and the land held in title by five persons including the Defendant, etc. to the male and female members of each house. The five title trustees divided the forest land of this case, but each of the male and female members of each house divided the forest of this case into the property cycle. As such, according to the agreement corresponding to the resolution on the distribution of the above clan property, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership regarding the portion of the Plaintiff’s share of the forest of this case corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share of the ownership

B. In light of the written evidence No. 3 and witness Q’s testimony alone, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the net P trusted the instant mother land to five persons including the Defendant, etc., in light of the respective written evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

Even if the mother land of this case was title trusted, it was the land in question.

Even if five registered titleholders agreed to divide the above land and distribute the above land to each unit of house, the Gap evidence No. 10 shall be stated as Eul No. 3.