1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic facts are the land where the registration of ownership preservation has not been made for B forest No. 11,207 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).

On April 23, 1967, the cadastral records were restored to the forest land register (hereinafter referred to as the " forest land register of this case") and on October 26, 1970, the owner of this case was restored and registered as the owner.

There is no land survey division or forest survey division concerning the land of this case.

The Plaintiff had a tombstone on the instant land, and the Plaintiff paid property tax on the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 8 (including virtual number), and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings is that the land of this case was inherited from the plaintiff's preference to the plaintiff, and is owned by the plaintiff.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was registered as the owner in the forest land register of this case and there were seedlingss by the Plaintiff on the land of this case, and the Plaintiff paid property tax on the land of this case.

At the time of enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975, hereinafter “former Cadastral Act”), there was no procedure for restoring the destroyed forest register for the sake of administrative convenience. Therefore, the forest register restored by the administrative agency having jurisdiction over the forest register for the sake of administrative convenience cannot be deemed legally restored, and the owner’s column cannot be a document evidencing the ownership ownership.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da17127, Jul. 30, 1996). Therefore, in the forest land register of this case restored at the time of enforcement of the former Cadastral Act, the evidence proving that the owner was restored on Oct. 26, 1970 and the Plaintiff was registered as the owner cannot be the evidence proving the Plaintiff’s ownership.

In the forest land register of this case, "Report on October 26, 1970, C Representative D (C Representative D)" is stated in the forest land register of this case (No. 1-3), and there is a possibility that the land of this case is land owned by species.