1. With respect to Defendant B’s share of 3/13, among the 3,570 square meters of H forests and fields in the Gyeongbuk-gun, G, Defendant C, D, E, F, and G, respectively.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition (1) The Network I (Death on July 31, 1984) completed the registration of creation of superficies (the purpose: the possession of standing timber and the duration of standing timber: 30 years from November 5, 1974) on November 5, 1974 with respect to the 3,570 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) of Hancheon-gun, Gancheon-gun, Gan District Court on the ground of the contract on November 5, 1974 with respect to the 3,570 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”).

(2) The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 14, 2018 due to inheritance by consultation and division on July 31, 1984 with respect to the instant forest.

(3) Defendant B is the deceased’s spouse, and Defendant C, D, E, F, and G are the deceased’s children, and their heir of the deceased’s property.

[Ground] Evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above facts of recognition, since the superficies under the deceased’s name expired on November 5, 2004, the defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, are obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the creation of superficies pursuant to their inheritance shares (the shares of Defendants B C/13, C, D, E, F, and G 2/13 shares).

2. The Defendants’ assertion and determination as to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant forest was purchased by the company, the deceased or the deceased’s representative director, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the actual ownership of the Plaintiff is in violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, and even if not, there exist trees in the instant forest, the Plaintiff is claiming that the Plaintiff exercise the right to renew the superficies

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the company whose representative director was the deceased or the deceased is the actual owner who purchased the forest of this case, or that there was a tree that is the subject of superficies on the forest of this case, the above assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted as reasonable.