1. The defendant among the 3,768 square meters of Gyeonggi-gun D Forest land, the share of 4/18 to the plaintiff A, the share of 10/18 to the plaintiff B, and the plaintiff C.

1. Basic facts

A. The forest survey document prepared in the Japanese occupation point period is written as follows: F residing in Gyeonggi-gun E is deemed to have received 380 square meters of forests and fields (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The instant land was converted into the area and became 3,768 square meters in Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do.

C. On the other hand, on November 27, 2009, the Defendant publicly announced non-owned real estate on the instant land, etc. (Ministry of National Defense G) and completed registration of preservation of ownership on the said land on November 19, 2010.

The Network H died on December 6, 1926, and caused I, J, K, L, M, and N.

Although the head of Sinnam I inherited Australia, on or after December 31, 1950, the plaintiffs filed a petition for adjudication of disappearance with the District Court 2017-Ma1663, because it is unknown whether I and P, who are the children, were alive or dead. The above court rendered adjudication of disappearance on July 26, 2018 for I,O, and P on the ground that the period of disappearance expires on December 31, 1955, and the above decision became final and conclusive on August 21, 2018.

E. On July 20, 1963, J, referring the plaintiffs, died on July 20, 1963, and his spouse Qua also died on January 1, 2002. Ultimately, the deceased's inherited property was succeeded to the shares of the plaintiff, Eul, and the shares of the plaintiff, Eul, 10/18.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6 through 8, 10 through 12, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In addition to the facts as to whether the plaintiffs are the successors of F, the above facts, each evidence mentioned above, and the statement in Gap evidence No. 9, the following circumstances revealed as follows, namely, the names of the deceased's first aider H, which are identical to those of the plaintiffs' first aider under the transcript No. 9, and F, who is the title of the circumstance, appears to have had the address in Gyeonggi-gun Group E. The permanent domicile and birth guidance address of the plaintiffs' first aid, such as the deceased H, belong to the same interest as the domicile of the former, which is the former. On the other hand, the permanent domicile in the deceased H's second aid is Gyeonggi-gun group R, while it is S with the deceased's first aid copy, which is the family heir.