1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. According to the Official Gazette of Dr. Gangwon-do (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) the network E (hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest”) paid taxes to the forest as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest”). In light of these facts, the forest owner at the time of the instant forest is the network E.

B. However, on January 20, 1971, F, upon becoming aware that the deceased died, was the owner of the forest of this case, applied for cadastral restoration. Accordingly, on the basis of the old forest register restored, F, on July 8, 1971, completed registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case on the basis of the old forest register restored.

Since then, with respect to the forest land of this case, G, September 9, 1989, and the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 11, 1989.

C. In a case where the old land cadastre was restored by the report of the destroyed and lost during the Korean War, there was no ground for the restoration of the destroyed and lost land cadastre under the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975), which was enforced at the time of the report, and there was no ground for the restoration of the destroyed and lost land cadastre, and there was no ground for the owner to restore it by the report of the general public and enter the owner in accordance with the contents of the report. Therefore, the old land cadastre restored by the above circumstance cannot be deemed a lawful land cadastre, and therefore, the ground for the registration of the preservation of ownership, which was based on

(Supreme Court Decision 92Da8699 delivered on May 22, 1992). Accordingly, the registration of ownership preservation in F’s above name is null and void, and the registration of ownership transfer in F’s order is null and void.

On the other hand, upon the death of the deceased, H solely inherited the deceased’s property, and the Plaintiff, one of nine children, who died, inherited the deceased’s property as 1/9 shares.

E. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the portion 1/9 of the forest of this case to the Plaintiff on the ground of the restoration of real name.

2. Determination Nos. 2 and 4 and 6 respectively.