1. The Defendant shall acquire by prescription on September 28, 1990, with respect to the Plaintiff’s share 2/90 of the 51967 square meters of the forest land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 28, 1970, the registration of preservation of ownership of 1/2 shares in the name of the network D and network E, each of which was completed on September 28, 1970 with respect to the forest land C, 51967 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”).

B. The network D died on August 24, 1979, and the network E on February 26, 1993.

C. As to the instant forest land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 12, 2019 under the name of the deceased D and deceased E co-inheritors, and the Defendant, one of the deceased E co-inheritors, completed the registration of ownership transfer as to 2/90 shares among the instant forest land on the same day.

From September 28, 1970, the Plaintiff occupies the forest of this case from September 28, 1970.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 through 16 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Plaintiff occupied the forest of this case from September 28, 1970 to September 28, 1990.

Therefore, the network E is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on September 28, 1990 with respect to the portion of 1/2 of the instant forest, and the Defendant, one of the deceased E co-inheritors, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on September 28, 1990 with respect to the portion of 2/90 of the instant forest, to the Plaintiff.

3. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion argues that “No evidence exists to prove that a title trust is a nominal trust, and inherited property is inherited on the basis of a registration document, but such circumstance alone does not obstruct the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the instant claim.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.