The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. From December 13, 1993, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the forest of this case upon the completion of the statute of limitation on December 13, 2003, by occupying the forest of this case in good faith and without negligence as to the intention of possession from December 13, 1993, which completed the registration of ownership transfer, the lower court acknowledged the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of ownership of the forest of this case by deeming that even if the Plaintiff’s registration of ownership transfer was cancelled on December 18, 2008 and the Defendant’s registration of ownership preservation was completed, the Plaintiff did not lose the ownership acquired by prescription.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following facts.

① On December 13, 1993, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the forest land of this case, the registration of ownership preservation of which has been completed in C future, and has been used as a road until now.

② In 204, the Defendant asserted that C’s heir and the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership by obtaining a false certificate of guarantee, and that C’s registration of initial ownership preservation and registration of ownership transfer based on C were all null and void and became final and conclusive by filing a lawsuit seeking cancellation registration (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Da165401).

③ On December 18, 2008, the Plaintiff’s registration of ownership transfer and C’s registration of ownership preservation was cancelled in accordance with the above final judgment, and the Defendant’s registration of ownership preservation was completed.

(2) According to the above facts, even if the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the forest of this case upon the completion of the prescription period for acquisition of the registry on December 13, 2003, the Plaintiff lost its ownership by lawful cancellation of the Plaintiff’s transfer registration according to the final judgment of the previous suit.