1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The forest survey report prepared during the Japanese occupation point period is registered as the fact that H having a domicile in the Gyeonggi-do Gri-gun located in the 11th and 2th 3th Ham-gun of Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. As to the above land, the registration under Defendant D was completed on January 17, 1966 by the Suwon District Court No. 146, which was received on January 17, 1966.

On August 26, 1971, the above land was successively divided, and became 55,736 square meters of forest land (the same day was converted to 55,736 square meters of forest land; hereinafter “the land before the annexation”). As to the land before the annexation of this case, Defendant E acquired the registration of transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Forest Ownership, Etc. (Act No. 2111) on August 26, 1971, under the Act No. 6896, which was received on August 26, 1971, the registration of transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Forest Ownership, Etc. (Act No. 2111) was completed on February 10, 1984 on the ground of consultation for acquisition of public land under the Act No. 1718, Feb. 10, 1984.

C. The land prior to the instant annexation was merged on September 17, 1996 with the land of Female-gun I.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the claim is that the heir, who is the title holder of the land before the instant partition, is the heir of H, who is the title holder of the land before the instant partition.

Therefore, as long as it is found that there is a separate list of Plaintiffs, the assessment title holder, as to the land remaining after the merger of this case, the presumption of registration of ownership preservation on the above land in Defendant D’s name is broken, and as such, the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant E and Defendant Republic’s name, which is based on the registration of ownership preservation, is null and void. Thus, Defendant D’s above registration of ownership preservation, Defendant E, and Defendant Republic, respectively, shall be the registration of ownership transfer under their names.