1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C Forest land 39,587 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) and D forest 7,917 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) were originally stated in the title section of the certified copy of the registry as “47,504 square meters of C Forest land in the Si/Eup/Myeon” (hereinafter “the land before subdivision”) in the title section of the register.

B. According to the lawsuit brought against F, G, H, I, and J (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Gadan94831) (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Gadan94831), the judgment that “the land before division is owned by E, and the land portion of the case No. 1 is divided into F, G, H, I, and J” (hereinafter “previous judgment”) was rendered and finalized around that time.

C. According to the previous judgment on March 2, 2009, the land before subdivision was divided into the land No. 1 and the land No. 2, and the land No. 2, but even thereafter, the land Nos. 1 and 2 were owned by E, F, G, H, I, and J, and were recorded in the certified copy of the register.

After the previous judgment was rendered, E’s share in the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case on the certified copy of the register was completed by the plaintiff, F, G, H, I, and J respectively to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined the instant claim on the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the land Nos. 1 and 2.

However, in the case of judicial partition, co-owners shall acquire sole ownership for the divided portion without registration pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Act after the judgment on partition becomes final and conclusive.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 70Da568 Decided June 30, 1970, and 201Du1917 Decided November 21, 2013, etc.) In full view of the above basic facts and the above legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that E became a single owner of the instant land No. 2, irrespective of the entry of the certified copy of the registry, as the previous judgment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the previous judgment becomes final and conclusive.