Real estate owners who are real estate owners.

As long as a registration of preservation of ownership has been completed following the possession and management of the forest of this case which was carried out on the basis of the intention of ownership, the acquisition by prescription after the lapse of 10 years from the completion of registration of preservation of ownership has been completed or the acquisition by prescription has been completed after the lapse of 20 years from the completion of registration of preservation of ownership.

1. The plaintiff

A. As to 19,898 square meters of forest land of ○○○-si ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-si, ○○○-do

(1) Defendant Republic of Korea is the ○○ District Court ○○○ registry office of January 31, 1996, as Heading 2509, and

(2) Defendant Cho○○ completed on March 8, 2005 at the same registry office as the receipt No. 9929,

B. As to shares in the above forest 6,612

(1) Defendant South ○○ completed on March 8, 2005 by the same registry office as the receipt No. 9930.

(2) Defendant Lee ○-○ completed on July 1, 2005 at the same registry office No. 31710;

C. Defendant Cho ○ completed on June 23, 2005 by the same registry office with respect to shares of 13,286/19,898 out of the above forest land.

The procedure for the cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership shall be implemented.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry (including the serial number) in subparagraphs A through 21.

A. On April 25, 2004, 00, ○○○○○ ○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○-do, ○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○○-gun, a land prior to the division of the instant forest (hereinafter “the instant forest”) was under the circumstances of Nonparty ○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○○-gun, a ○○○○○-gun, and the co-inheritors of ○○○○, a co-inheritors of ○○○, a co-inheritors of ○○○, agreed on the division of the inherited forest with the content that the Defendant ○○-do, one of his inheritors, shall be

B. On the other hand, the non-party ○, who was changing ○○ and ○○○○’s large scale of the instant forest, occupied and managed the instant forest, including the instant forest, and died on January 18, 194. After doing so, the non-party ○○, an infant of ○○○, occupied and managed the instant forest, including the instant forest, and registered the preservation of ownership of the instant forest on September 8, 1962. The non-party ○ continuously occupied and managed the instant forest after the preservation registration.

C. After that, following the death on January 17, 1995, the Plaintiffs, who are their successors, completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 20, 1996 with respect to the forest of this case on the ground of inheritance. Moreover, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 31, 1996 on the ground of the payment of national taxes on the forest of this case on January 31, 1996 by Defendant ○○○○○○ upon granting permission for payment in kind to the inheritance tax due to the death of Cho○○○○○○○.

D. However, Defendant ○○○ filed a lawsuit against Defendant ○○○○ on the ground that he is the inheritor of ○○○○○, the title holder of the land prior to the division, seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of title in relation to the forest of this case (○○ District Court 2004Gadan449 case), and the above court rendered a favorable judgment against Defendant ○○○○○ on January 20, 2005, and the judgment became final and conclusive at that time. Examining the reasoning of the above judgment, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of ○○○○ was destroyed by stating that there is a separate existence between the title holder of the forest of this case and his heir. As a result, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiffs and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant ○○○○○○○, which was based on the preservation registration and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of ○○○○○○.

E. According to the above final judgment, on March 8, 2005, Defendant Cho Jae-○ completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the forest of this case, and thereafter, as to the 6,612/19,00 of the forest of this case as to the 6,612/19,00 of the forest of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in order with respect to the remaining 13,286/19, as described in paragraph (b) of this case, and the remaining 13,286/198 shares, as described in paragraph (3) of this Article.

F. Meanwhile, on March 14, 2005, the Defendant ○○○○, who lost the lawsuit with Defendant ○○○○, revoked the permission to pay inheritance tax on the instant forest in kind, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs paid inheritance tax.

2. Determination

As seen in the above facts, the registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case in the name of ○○, the inheritee of the plaintiffs, was revealed to be separate from the title holder of the circumstances. However, as long as ○○○ had continued to possess and manage the forest of this case, which was conducted by ○○○’s will, prior to the completion of registration of preservation of ownership in its name, it is reasonable to view that ○○ has occupied the forest of this case in peace and openly and openly as the owner’s will. Thus, as the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on September 8, 1962, which was 10 years after the date when the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on September 8, 1972, when the ownership was completed, or when 20 years passed since the date when the ownership transfer was completed, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 8, 1982, which was made in the name of ○○○ and its heir, and the remaining registration of ownership transfer from the plaintiffs in the name of ○○○○○ was revoked’s as valid registration of ownership.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.