1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In around 1913, 1913, the Plaintiff’s tideline D, which was a Japanese colon, was under the circumstances of 13,884 square meters of forest land C in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. On December 30, 1965, the forest register for the forest of this case prepared by the restoration of the cadastral record was registered as the forest of this case where the defendant's assistance network E was under the circumstances.

C. On June 3, 1993, the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case based on the Act on Special Measures for Restoration, Registration, and Registration of Preservation of Unclaimed Land (Act No. 3627, invalidation, and hereinafter “Special Measures Act”). D.

In the forest of this case, there are seedlings for the defendant, such as net E, etc.

However, the forest of this case is located within the Civilian Access Control Zone where access to military units can only be permitted, and the defendant does not directly occupy the forest of this case, and the defendant has obtained permission to access military units each year from before the registration of preservation of ownership was completed.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 5-1 through 3, and Eul evidence 1 through 4

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the forest land in this case was inherited by the Plaintiff with co-inheritors due to the forest land under the circumstances of the Plaintiff’s her father D, which was the father.

Since the defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership in the forest of this case without any title, he seeks to cancel the above registration of preservation of ownership.

3. The presumption of registration of preservation of ownership of the land to determine the cause of the claim is invalid, unless it is proved that there is a separate person in charge of the assessment of the land, and the registered titleholder does not prove the acquisition by succession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da4705, Jun. 24, 2003; 2002Da43417, May 26, 2005). The forest of this case is subject to the “net D” under the Forest Survey Report, and thus, the forest of this case is subject to the “net D,” barring special circumstances. Thus, the forest of this case is subject to the network D, barring special circumstances.