1. Each real estate listed in the attached list of real estate shall be in accordance with the ratio of shares in the attached list of inheritance shares;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The forest survey report prepared during the Japanese occupation occupation period is written as follows: (a) Gyeonggi-do research report on forest land B in the Japanese occupation period is written as follows: (b) Dongcheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do 37-Ma6-do, C-8-Ma of forest land, and D-do 8-Ma5-Ma of forest land. The above land was each real estate listed in the annexed real estate list (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The instant real estate is unregistered and its owner is not indicated in the forest land register.

C. On July 16, 1950, F, a conciliation division of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) died. According to the customary law at the time, G, a family head heir, succeeded to the property of the deceased Party, and after G died on 2002, there is the Plaintiff and its heir.

(The final inheritance ratio is as shown in the attached inheritance shares table). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 13-3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

(a) A person registered in the Land Survey Book as a landowner shall be deemed to have become final and conclusive and acquired the land from the land owner in the absence of counter-proofs such as the change in the content of the land by an adjudication;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da94384, 94391, 94407, May 13, 201). Meanwhile, in a case where a person succeeding to his/her ownership by inheritance as a successor of a person under circumstances asserts that he/she acquired his/her ownership by inheritance as a successor of the person under circumstances, the identity between his/her title holder and his/her title holder should be strictly proved, so that he/she may have conviction in his/her claim, and even if there are circumstances that may raise a doubt as to such issue, he/she shall not be inferred without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da45924, Nov. 26, 2009).

In the case of this case, the identity of the plaintiff's lighting and the title holder of the situation shall be determined in full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, E, the title holder of the circumstance, is F, of the plaintiff.