1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

3...

1. The 2,380 square meters of the C Forest land in Daegu-gun, a foundation fact-finding (hereinafter “instant forest”) was owned by Nonparty D, who was under the circumstances on December 16, 1917, by Nonparty D, and was currently owned by Nonparty D. The current state of being unregistered due to the destruction of the registry and the owner in the forest register is “E”.

The net F, which was put by the defendant B, was "Tgu Metropolitan City achievement-gun G," which was 1951, 3, 6 and deceased.

On the other hand, on August 9, 1954, the Plaintiff’s Siberter H died, and on December 24, 1986, the deceased on December 24, 1986.

Property tax, etc. on the instant forest land was imposed on the taxpayer in 1995 and 1996, but the taxpayer was exempted from collection as small amount, 197 and 198, which was imposed on the network I, from 1999 to 2004, and the reason why the property tax, etc. was imposed on the deceased I or the defendant A was unknown, and in 2015, it was imposed on the network D, the owner of the forest land in the forest land register.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), tax information reply to the achievement group, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the Defendant Republic of Korea’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the prescriptive acquisition against Defendant B on the ground that the Plaintiff continuously occupied the instant forest by the deceased H and his heir as the intention owned by the deceased H and I after purchasing the instant forest from the deceased H, and that the Plaintiff succeeded to his possession for twenty (20) years, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation that the instant forest is owned by Defendant B, the Defendant Republic of Korea stated that the instant forest is owned by Defendant B, and that Defendant Republic of Korea did not dispute the ownership of the instant forest as the State, the Defendant Republic of Korea stated as the nominal owner in the forest register as to the instant forest as the forest in this case, and therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea did not dispute the ownership of the State. Accordingly, the Defendant Republic of Korea’

With respect to any land, the register or land cadastre; or