1. The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. As to H (the deceased on July 2, 1998, hereinafter “the deceased”) and Defendant G’s 1/2 co-ownership shares, the entire co-owner’s share share in the establishment of a mortgage (the maximum amount of KRW 50 million, the deceased, Defendant F, Defendant F, and the instant mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) was completed on June 22, 1998 under the title of Article 35473 of the Changwon District Court Decision 3543, Jun. 22, 1998, as to the forest of this case (hereinafter “the instant forest”).

B. On August 19, 2005, Defendant F, based on the instant right to collateral security, received a decision on commencing the auction from the Changwon District Court (J of the Changwon District Court), and Defendant F sold and acquired the instant forest land during the above auction process on May 30, 2006 and acquired ownership.

C. The plaintiffs shall be the deceased's grandchildren.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Defendants, as part of the primary claim, conspired to forge a document and executed a voluntary auction after establishing the instant mortgage, thereby infringing on the Plaintiffs’ ownership of the instant forest land.

Even if a forged document is not used, it is a tort that the deceased created the instant collateral security right to prevent the deceased from disposing of the forest land of this case in mind.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay damages for delay from November 15, 2012, where the Plaintiffs cannot recover their ownership in a conclusive manner as the forest land in this case was sold to a third party by compulsory auction as at least seven million won for damages to each of the Plaintiffs and the forest in this case was sold to each third party.

B. Even if the conjunctive claim was duly established, the court below held that the Defendants conspired to register the deceased’s domicile at the Defendant G’s domicile.