1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) the court’s explanation of the instant case is not sufficient to acknowledge the facts alleged by the plaintiffs; (b) the respective entries of Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 16 (including serial numbers) are rejected; and (c) other than adding the following judgments, it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment; and (d) thus, it is acceptable in accordance

2. The Plaintiffs asserts that registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the deceased E was completed on August 30, 1971 even if the condition of the instant land was determined, and that registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the deceased E was not proven to have succeeded to the instant land from the deceased E, and that registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the deceased F is a registration of invalidation of cause, because it was destroyed by its estimated capacity.

Where registration of preservation of ownership or registration of transfer of ownership has been made pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (amended by Act No. 9143, Dec. 19, 2008; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), even if it is found that there is a separate person in charge of the assessment of forest land, such registration shall be presumed to have been completed lawfully in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the relevant Act and consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, in order to reverse such presumption, the person shall assert and prove that a letter of guarantee or confirmation, which forms the basis for the relevant registration, was forged or falsely prepared, or that such presumption was not duly registered on other grounds

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da19571, Oct. 10, 1997): Provided, That in cases where the act of causing registration of preservation of ownership or transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures is recognized after June 21, 1969 as the first act of causing registration of preservation of ownership or transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures is recognized as having

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da27733, Apr. 9, 2004). According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, according to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the land of this case where the deceased E was under circumstances.