1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, a real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) was the Plaintiff’s co-ownership of the forest of this case as the Plaintiff’s co-ownership of the forest of this case. The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s children, and six other parties, were finally jointly succeeded to the networkR’s property. As the Defendants had already completed the ownership transfer registration, etc. over the forest of this case, the Plaintiff, as an act of preserving the forest of this case, sought the declaration of consent for cancellation or cancellation of the above registration as an act of preserving the forest of this case.

Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff had no title to file each of the instant claims against the Defendants, since the Plaintiff already sold the forest land of this case by the Plaintiff’s assistance division.

2. According to each of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3, it is recognized that the plaintiff's Madon R, the plaintiff's Madon's Madon's title of assessment of the forest of this case is recognized.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in Eul evidence No. 1, the deceased can be recognized as having sold the forest land of this case to U residing in Yangju-gun T around 1937, and according to the Civil Act at the time of sale, there was a change in the real right only by a juristic act between the parties. Accordingly, since the deceased had no title to the forest of this case after the sale to U, the deceased had no title to the forest of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff inherited the property of the deceased R.

The Defendants do not have any title to seek consent to the cancellation or cancellation of registration made in relation to the forest of this case against the Defendants.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da79718 Decided December 24, 2008). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.