1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s each point is indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 11, 12, and 1 among the 3667m2 in Hongcheon-gun D’s 367m2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 4, 1994, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the Docheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, 3667m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On May 3, 2001, Dong, the father of the Plaintiff, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance by consultation and division on July 5, 1981 with respect to the land of Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun (hereinafter “Plaintiff forest”). On September 16, 201, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on donation on September 14, 2014 with respect to the Plaintiff forest.

C. On March 7, 1995, the Plaintiff purchased 120,000,000,000,000 won from Defendant B, each point of which is indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 11, 12, and 1 among the instant land (hereinafter “the instant land”) connected in order to use as the access road to the Plaintiff’s forest adjacent to the instant land.

(However, the sales contract is prepared on March 7, 2015).

After that, approximately KRW 171.1 square meters, including the instant land purchased, are packed into cement, and the Plaintiff has used this part as an access road to the Plaintiff’s forest from that time to that time, and G and H, which are neighboring farmland owners, have used this part as farmland.

E. However, on April 8, 2009, Defendant B completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on the instant land to Defendant C, one’s own deceptive act, under Article 6458 of the Hongcheon District Court’s receipt of the Hongcheon District Court’s Hongcheon Registry.

[Ground for recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

) (In the case of evidence A 4 and 7, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been established as a whole because there is no dispute over the seal imprint portion of Defendant B.

As to this, the defendant B has proved that I had forged the above defendant's seal without the above defendant's consent, but it is difficult to believe the above defendant's personal seal result, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

each description and image of the Commission, witness J, and I, respectively;