1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 17, 1918, the deceased K (Death around 1923) was assessed on the 496m3m2 of J-J forest (hereinafter “the instant forest”). The deceased’s heir L in 1928, the deceased’s heir M and the Defendants jointly succeeded to the deceased’s property. The deceased deceased in around 2008, and the Defendants jointly succeeded to the deceased M’s property.

Accordingly, the Defendants’ inheritance shares are 7/42, each of Defendant B, C, D, E, and F, and 3/42 in Defendant G, Defendant H, and I are 2/42.

B. On August 24, 1968, the Plaintiff’s network N purchased 100 square meters of land and buildings adjacent to the instant forest.

C. As of the closing date of the instant pleadings, the Plaintiff occupied the part on the ship indicated in the attached appraisal sheet among the forest land in this case and cultivated it as dry field.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, purchased the instant woodland in around 1974 and managed it as dry field, and died on April 6, 1990. Since then, the Plaintiff’s mother, succeeded to and managed possession of the instant forest land, and the Plaintiff died on February 6, 2015 and succeeded to the ownership of the instant forest land and the possession of the instant forest land by the agreement on the division of inherited property, while managing it up to now.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff occupied the forest land of this case in a peaceful manner with its own intention for 48 years from around 1974 to the present 48 years, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership upon completion of the acquisition by prescription on August 24, 1998 for each inheritance shares to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant asserts that the defendant did not recognize the possession of the network N, and that the plaintiff's claim of this case is unfair since the defendant is an occupation of the owner that started without any title.

C. We examine whether the Plaintiff occupied the instant forest for 20 years.