1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 9, 1939, the transfer of ownership, owner I, and J, as of the date of change in the forest land register of this case.

B. The instant land is not registered.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The claim for partition of co-litigation is a requisite co-litigation in which the co-owner who claims partition becomes the plaintiff and all other co-owners should become the co-defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da31124 delivered on July 10, 2001). It cannot be readily concluded that the owner is the owner solely on the ground that he was indicated as the owner in the Domination book and the forest register. Thus, at the time of enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975), there was no procedure for restoring the destroyed forest register, and thus, the forest register restored for administrative convenience cannot be deemed lawful recovery. Accordingly, the owner’s indication cannot be deemed as evidence proving the ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da12216 delivered on June 26, 1992). Even if the name of the owner is written on the old land cadastre arbitrarily restored for the administrative convenience without any legal basis before the enforcement of the Cadastral Act amended by Act No. 2801 delivered on December 31, 1975, the competent authority’s arbitrary recovery from the old land cadastre cannot be recognized as the presumption of rights.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da17831 delivered on February 26, 199). The written evidence No. 4 alone is sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants were co-owners of the instant land, and even if so, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the entire co-owners of the instant land, other than the Plaintiff, were designated as the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da17831 delivered on February 26, 199).

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is dismissed as it is unlawful.

In case a judgment on partition of unregistered land has been received.