1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased N was the father of the Plaintiff, and died on or around February 2015, and the deceased was the decedent of the Defendants, and the deceased around August 28, 2003.

B. From around 1973 in 1973, the network N engaged in mining of luminous rocks used as raw materials for cosmetics while occupying “M 3409 square meters” indicated in the annexed drawings (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) among forest land in 15868 square meters in YYY-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun.

C. The network N donated the instant forest land to the Plaintiff around May 191, 191.

[Ground for recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(i) each entry or video, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion N purchased the instant forest land from the networkO in around 1974 to run the mine business, and thereafter continuously occupied the said forest land with the intention to own it.

On May 191, 191, the Plaintiff acquired the gift of the above forest from the net N and possessed it from that time. As such, on May 16, 201, the period of prescription for the acquisition of possession of the forest of this case was completed.

Therefore, the Defendants, the heir of the networkO, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of completion of prescriptive acquisition with respect to each share ratio among the forest of this case to the Plaintiff.

3. In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, the aforementioned macroscopic evidence, the statements or images of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 through 16, and the entire purport of the arguments as a result of the inquiry of each fact-finding reply to the Do Governor of this court and the Do Governor of the Republic of Korea, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone occupied the forest of this case as its owner until May 191.

Around that time, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff succeeded to the above possession until May 16, 201, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on each possession above is without merit without further review.

① The Plaintiff’s net N around 1974.