1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 1918, the fact that “I” located in the Gyeonggi-gun Gri-do “Yari-gun, Gyeonggi-do,” which was drafted during the Japanese occupation period, was indicated as the fact that the GJ-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Gari-gun, Gyeonggi-do was under the assessment of the forests and fields.

B. The forest of this case was divided into the above-mentioned land with a land size of 1142 square meters, F with a wife population, and the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on December 30, 1986 on the forest of this case on the ground of an agreement on the land for public use.

C. On August 12, 1930, K of Gyeonggi-gun died on the part of the plaintiff's main line L of the plaintiff, and family heir M inherited his/her property solely, and on August 18, 1959, the deceased on August 18, 1959, the family heir N inherited his/her property solely.

On August 21, 198, the network N died, and the plaintiffs decided to own 1/3 shares of the forest of this case through an agreement on the division of inherited property among heirs.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4, and 7 evidence (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view the same person in light of the following: (a) the title holder of the instant forest land and the Plaintiff’s fleet L is identical to the Chinese name; (b) the address is consistent; and (c) there is no evidence that L’s name was located near

However, a person registered as an owner in a forest survey report shall be presumed to have been assessed as the owner of the land inasmuch as there is no counter-proof such as the change in the content of the land by the adjudication, and the circumstances thereof are presumed to have been confirmed. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s prior acquisition of the instant forest was the Plaintiff’s primary L, and the Plaintiffs, the final heir of the deceased L, succeeded to one-third of the instant forest shares in accordance with the shares agreed upon

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is based on the restoration of real name with respect to each of the shares of 1/3 with respect to the forest of this case to the plaintiffs.