1. The defendant shall receive on August 20, 198 from the plaintiff the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-gu 1,289 square meters of forest land B in Kimcheon-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 15, 2017, the Plaintiff was divided into 1,312 square meters prior to Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). Under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate Ownership, the Plaintiff completed the registration of preservation of ownership on May 6, 1981 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s registration of preservation of ownership”). The Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the land of 1,289 square meters prior to Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”). The registration of preservation of ownership was completed on August 20, 1988 by receipt No. 15690 on August 20, 198, Daegu District Court Decision 15690 on the land of 1,200 square meters prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s registration of preservation of ownership”). (b)

Plaintiff

Land and the defendant land are located in the same location, and the cadastral map and the forestry map of the plaintiff's land were registered in duplicate.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Where a certain land which is determined as to the cause of the claim is registered with one parcel of land in the cadastral record, the location number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land shall be specified by the registration, and the scope of ownership of the land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da4615, Jun. 16, 1995). The identity of the land shall be determined based on whether two preservation registrations actually indicate the same land by taking into account the parcel number, land category, and land

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, are ① the size of the Plaintiff’s land is 1,312 square meters and the size of the Defendant’s land is almost similar to 1,289 square meters; ② the location and boundary in the cadastral map of the Plaintiff’s land and the location and boundary in the cadastral map of the Defendant’s land appears to be almost identical. ③ The Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s