1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall, with respect to each forest land listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, be as to the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is that “E has died on July 27, 1968,” in Section 1(c) of the first instance court’s judgment, deleted the part “E shall be deemed to have been “7/13 shares” with respect to “7/13 shares,” and the second part of Section 1(f) shall read “R, Plaintiff, S, T, and U, the heir of the network P, who is the heir of the network P, inherited all of the network P rights, such as the right to claim ownership transfer registration of each forest of this case on October 2016, added to the grounds for recognition that “R, Plaintiff, S, T, and U agreed on the inheritance division of inherited property with the purport that the Plaintiff succeeds to the entire right of the network P, such as the right to claim ownership transfer registration of each forest of this case,” and this shall be cited as the corresponding part of the first instance judgment’s reasoning, except for the addition of A’s evidence No. 1

2. The parties' assertion

A. On November 23, 1974, the Plaintiff’s assertion P purchased each of the instant woodland and occupied it in a peaceful and openly held with intent to own it for twenty (20) years thereafter, and acquired each of the instant woodland by prescription on November 24, 1994. Since the Plaintiff’s sole inheritance of the network P right to each of the instant woodland, the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of completion of the acquisition by prescription against each of the instant woodland as the deceased P’s heir.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The mere fact that a tomb and a stone are installed in each of the instant forests cannot be deemed to have occupied P as the owner’s intent for twenty (20) years from November 23, 1974. In addition, as the certificate of sale of evidence No. 6, which is the ground for the Plaintiff’s independent possession, cannot be recognized as the establishment of the authenticity, P cannot be deemed to have purchased each of the instant forests, and P is not deemed to have been aware of the fact that P was not entitled to dispose of each of the instant forests, and P is not deemed to have acquired the prescriptive acquisition of each of the instant forests on November 24, 1994, since P was already well aware of the fact that the possession of each of the instant forests was the possession of a grave and a stone, etc., which is the ground for the Plaintiff’s independent possession.