1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A D forest survey document prepared pursuant to the Decree on the Investigation of Forest Areas and Areas within the Japanese Occupation Period (Ordinance No. 5, May 1, 1918), shall state that the denial of the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor’s claim as the owner is indicated as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s denial of the forest land before and after the land registration was entered in the claim (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. After the cadastral change was restored on May 8, 1967, the forest land before the cadastral change entered as the owner in the forestry register and entered as the owner. The plaintiff holds a certificate of registration that was filed for registration of preservation of ownership under the receipt of Macheon Registry No. 6907 on December 31, 1964, but the land in this case is currently unregistered.

C. The D area where the instant land is located is the area where all cadastral records were destroyed at the time of June 25.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the previous owner in around 1964 and completed the registration thereof, and that the instant land became unregistered, thereby seeking confirmation of ownership against the Defendant, the State.

B. Where a person who has completed registration of preservation of ownership due to recovery after the relevant registry was destroyed is presumed to be a lawful owner, but a third party is determined to have determined the relevant land, or there is another person who has made registration of preservation of ownership on the register before destruction, and his/her transfer is denied, the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership due to recovery is broken unless it is followed by the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership or by the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership

The Supreme Court Decision 199 delivered on December 26, 1995 is that the registration shall be null and void unless the facts of the acquisition by succession are asserted or proved.