1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 12, 1986, the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership as to B forest No. 298 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) with respect to the Jinju-si District Court of Jungyang-gu on August 12, 1986.

B. The deceased C’s grandchildren have the network D, and the Plaintiff is one of the children of D.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the forest of this case is owned by the deceased C, and the Defendant made a registration of preservation of ownership without any reason, and the above registration of preservation of ownership is null and void.

Since the above forest land acquired the ownership of D, the plaintiff's attached, but D died in around 1960 and succeeded to it, the plaintiff sought cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership that is null and void.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the provisions of Articles 3 and 10 of the Decree on the Investigation of Shipbuilding and Forest Land (Ordinance No. 5 of May 1, 1918), and Articles 1 and 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on the Investigation of Shipbuilding and Forest Land (Ordinance No. 38 of May 1, 1918), in a case where the owner’s column on the Forest Survey No. 38 of the said Decree is indicated as “state” in the “owner’s column,” and the relative’s column includes the address and name of the specific individual as well as the related party’s name, the person recorded as the related party’s

2.1. 21. 21. 21. If the previous owner or his heir of a forest reverted to the State as a result of the failure to perform an occupation and exit in the land register under Article 19 of the above Decree is highly likely to have been owned by the relative at the time of the situation of the forest land under Article 10 of the said Decree, it is difficult to conclude that the said forest land was owned by the relative, barring any particular circumstance, and further, it is difficult to conclude that the said forest land was owned by the relative, barring any particular circumstance, and further, it is possible to conclude that the said forest land was owned by the related party.