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.

Basic Facts

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The plaintiffs asserted that since each registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name, which was completed with respect to the land Nos. 1 and 2 before the instant partition, is invalid for the following reasons, the registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name, which was completed with respect to the land Nos. 1 and 2 after the instant partition, should also be revoked as a cause invalidation.

The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the land No. 1 before the division of this case was made based on the land cadastre restored by the defendant's report without any legal basis before the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975) to which the provisions concerning the restoration of destroyed official cadastral records were newly established. Thus, registration of invalidation is registration of cause.

The registration of preservation of ownership of the land in the name of the defendant with respect to the second land before the division was completed pursuant to the Forestry Act, but ① in order to be subject to the Forestry Act (Act No. 2111), the land subject to the Act at the time of June 21, 1969, which was the enforcement date of the said Act, should be forest land. The land category of the second land before the division was changed from the farmland to the forest land (the plaintiff asserted that the second land before the division was transferred to the defendant under the Forest Act on the premise that the registration under the Act on the Special Measures for Forest and Forest was possible only at the time when the second land before the division is transferred to the defendant, and that the second land before the transfer to the defendant was not forest land. Even if the forest land at the time of registration under the Family Special Measures Act is sufficient, the plaintiff's assertion that the second land before the division was not forest land at the time of the above registration in the name of the defendant was not forest land). ② The plaintiff's assertion that the registration of preservation of ownership was made before the forest Act on June 1, 1, 196.