1. The Defendant indicated in the annexed drawings among the 1st six forest land in the following regions in the following regions: 7, 8, 9, 19, 18, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, among the 1st six forest land in the following regions:

1. On October 16, 1970, when the Plaintiff had completed the registration of preservation of ownership with respect to the land for which the Plaintiff’s increase and decrease of D1 unit D (hereinafter “D forest”) was under circumstances, on December 27, 1975, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant on December 27, 1975 with respect to the land for which the Plaintiff was under circumstances, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant on August 25, 2008 (the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of F on August 25, 2008 with respect to the share of 265/1587 out of the above land) may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the written evidence No. 1 through 5.

As to the plaintiff's claim for the completion of prescription on the ground that he knows that the land of this case was occupied and used as part of D forest and land, the plaintiff's claim for the completion of prescription on the ground that he knows that the land of this case was occupied and used as part of D forest and land, and that the land of this case was possessed and used as part of D among the land of this case (hereinafter "land of this case"), among the land of this case, the land of this case is not owned by the plaintiff as owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant cannot acquire prescription on the ground that he did not own the land of this case with the intention of the plaintiff.

2. Whether the Plaintiff’s possession is recognized or not: In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff continued to occupy the part of the instant dispute land for a period of 20 years from October 16, 1970, which is alleged by the Plaintiff, by comprehensively taking into account each description of evidence Nos. 8 through 12, testimony by witnesses G, and the result of the on-site inspection by this court:

① Around the instant land and D forest adjoining to the instant land and D forest, the grave of the Plaintiff’s husband and wife is located, and his descendants have been preserved and managed by the said grave up to the Plaintiff. In light of the location, interval, etc. of each grave, the considerable part of the land of the instant “ivivable” appears to be necessary to safeguard and divate the said grave (in particular, a grave located within the boundary of each land).

② The instant land and the housing site owned by the Defendant can be distinguished from the external shape, and the Plaintiff is deemed to have been able to be able to be able to be able to be able to.