1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The parties’ relationship 1) The Forest Survey Division prepared during the Japanese occupation period is deemed as “the instant forest land” in the 7th Gao-gun of Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Gao-si, one single Gao-si (764,628 square meters; hereinafter “the instant forest”).

2) On December 10, 1969, H succeeded to H as the owner of the land, and on December 10, 1969, the son, who is the family heir, I succeeded to H. on March 25, 1989, and on March 25, 1989, the Plaintiff A, who is a child, succeeded to I by himself. On March 10, 1969, the J succeeded to L, who is the husband, the Plaintiff B, C, and his married married to H. on November 24, 1975, the Plaintiff B, and C, who is the family heir, and the Plaintiff D, C, and F, who is the child of the Plaintiff, and F, succeeded to H. on January 19, 197.

According to the above inheritance relationship, the plaintiffs' respective inheritance shares in H's property are calculated.

2. The same as the list of inheritance shares;

B. On September 20, 1963, the details and current status of preparing the forestry register concerning the instant forest, while the cadastral records managed by the Gyeonggi-gun due to the Korean War were all destroyed, and Pyeongtaek-gun restored the forest register concerning the instant forest on September 20, 1963. In the process of restoring the said forest register, Pyeongtaek-gun restored the forest register. In the process of restoring the said forest register, the Intervenor subsidized by the Defendant was a private forest around 1931.

1. Purchasing each land listed in paragraphs 1 through 3 of the list;

“The land of this case” shall be the land listed in the separate sheet in the forest of this case before 1931 on the basis of the Do forest ledger in which the content is written, and the land of this case shall be the attached sheet among them.

1. Each land indicated in paragraphs 1 through 3 of the list is “the instant forest land” and “the instant forest land 2” as indicated in Paragraph 4 of the same list.

I reported that the owner of the forest No. 1 in this case was divided, and prepared a forestry register in which the owner of the forest No. 2 in this case was recorded as the Defendant’s Intervenor.

However, the forestry map on each land of this case does not provide any data to verify the boundaries after the division, and the restoration surveying was not conducted.