1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs' fleet I died on May 15, 1951, and at the time K K had already died and she succeeded to the property solely due to her death.

L died on October 1, 1982, and there was a spouse M, South-Nam H, South-Nam, Plaintiff D, Women A, Plaintiff B, C, and Women C as heir.

At the time, G, the plaintiff A, and B were married and married, and the plaintiff C was unmarried.

Tir G died on August 30, 2006, and the plaintiff E and F, a child, jointly inherited the property.

M The spouse died on November 12, 2015, and the Plaintiff E and F, a child, was jointly succeeded to the property of H, Plaintiff A, B, C, D and G.

B. The plaintiffs' fleet I established a permanent domicile in Ulsan-gun (referring to the old name of the Ulsan-gun; hereinafter referred to as "Ulju-gun") by the time of the death of May 15, 1951.

I’s children, from 1922 to 1945, are the same as the birth guidance of the Plaintiff A (TW) and B (UB) who is the grandchildren and the grandchildren.

C. The instant land remains unregistered as of May 5, 1919. The old forest land register and current forest land register indicate that the instant land was transferred to N who had an address in Ulsan-gun Pri on April 1, 193 after the State was informed on May 5, 1919.

Even in the protocol of incorporation into a reserved forest for the land of this case drawn up around June 6, 1941, the owner is indicated as N having his domicile in Priju-gun.

The area V of Ulsan-gun was later incorporated into the North-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and the North-gu Office of Ulsan-gu has currently no certified copy of the expulsion from which the person I is the head of the household, except the plaintiffs I, and there is no certified copy of the expulsion from which the head of the household is the head of the Ulsan-gun Office of Ulsan-gun.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the fact-finding inquiry reply by the head of Ulsan-do and the head of Ulsan-do, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's main defense of this case.