1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s revocation part is against the Defendants.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

The part on the claim for ownership transfer registration of the land No. 1 and the part on the “3. conclusion” are as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical with that of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Determination on the claim for ownership transfer registration on the land No. 1 of this case

A. We examine the case. Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act provides that “The ownership of a spawal forest within the information pertaining to a tomb shall be succeeded by the person in charge of the memorial work, farmland within a 600 square meter, spawal land and spawal land, spawal land, and spawal land shall be succeeded by the person in charge of the memorial work.” In this context, the term “spawal forest” refers to the forest whose spawal trees are prohibited to install and protect the tomb in order to protect the tomb in question and where trees are raised and the person who asserts that the spawal forest alone, as a family heir, succeeded to the spawal forest within the information pertaining

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293, Feb. 18, 2016). In addition, the determination of whether a forest constitutes a gold-raising forest should be made in light of the current status and management status of the forest, and the mere fact that a grave exists in some of the forest areas does not constitute a gold-raising forest.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da79037 delivered on January 16, 2004, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, considering the following circumstances, the instant case’s health team, Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, 45, 47, 49, and 52 through 55 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of oral argument as a whole, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone prohibits fellings and raises trees in order to protect a vessel’s grave as a whole.