1. It is confirmed that 6/20 shares of 2,421 square meters of land in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, are owned by the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The forest survey report is indicated as “D” having the domicile in “C” as being subject to assessment of 2,479 square meters of forest land B in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, before division. 2) The land before division was cadastral restoration on March 31, 1952, and on May 3, 1994, the land before division was divided into E forest land 58 square meters of forest land.

3) The instant forest land is 2,421 square meters in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “instant forest”).

4) The proprietor’s column for the old forest register and the present forest register regarding the instant forest is only indicated “D” but does not include the address, resident registration number, date of birth, etc.

B. Inheritance 1) The deceased on March 4, 1954 and the deceased on March 4, 1954, the deceased on the deceased on the deceased on the part of the deceased on the deceased on the part of the deceased on the deceased on the part of the deceased on the family heir, and the deceased on June 10, 1965 succeeded to the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on

3) The deceased on January 29, 1984. The deceased on January 29, 1984, and the Plaintiff, his her son, and his son, succeeded to the deceased H’s property according to his statutory share of inheritance. 4) The deceased on August 18, 2012. The deceased on August 18, 2012, J and K, his son’s son’s son’s son’s legal share of inheritance.

5) Inheritance shares in the instant forest land are 6/20, J, and K respectively 7/20. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff has no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (Additional number) and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, including each number number.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant’s main port of safety was registered as D’s owner in the forest land register of this case. Thus, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the Defendant. 2) The Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of co-ownership based on the co-ownership relation as a whole should be made jointly by all co-owners, and the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff mixed is unlawful.

B. A claim for confirmation of land ownership against a country is unregistered and land cadastreed.