1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 10, 1913, P entered into the land cadastre of 7,351 square meters of forest land in Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. The Defendants, as the successors of P, completed the registration of ownership preservation of the instant forest land around July 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiff's claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant forest was owned by net Q, which was originally owned by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants completed registration of preservation of ownership in the process of creating a new forest where the instant forest was assessed under the name of P.

Therefore, since the registration of ownership preservation by the Defendants is null and void, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name.It is not a domestic case.

However, since around July 10, 1913, the forest land of this case was established by the Plaintiffs from around July 10, 1913, and it was peace and patently occupied with their intent to own the grave. Thus, the prescription period for possession was completed on July 10, 193.

B. Determination 1) The fact that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendants was completed on the instant land is as seen above. Therefore, the Defendants are presumed to be the lawful owner of the instant forest. Moreover, the entries or images of the evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including the serial number) are insufficient to recognize that the instant land was owned by the net Q, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The Plaintiffs’ confirmation letter of local tax payment submitted by the Plaintiffs for the payment of taxes on the instant forest was not only the data that was paid for the amount of taxes on June 22, 2015, but also the taxpayer’s name was P, the Defendants’ prior owner. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiffs submitted all preliminary evidence, the Plaintiffs’ primary claim is not accepted.