1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim of the first instance judgment shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

1. The scope of the court's trial at the first instance court's first instance court's request for cancellation of registration of ownership preservation, and the first instance court's request for ownership transfer registration based on the prescriptive prescription, dismissed the main claim, and accepted the conjunctive claim, and only the defendant appealed, the court determined only the conjunctive claim.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases:

3. The 3rd to 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall have 6 to 4th of the 6th of the judgment as follows.

“B. The Plaintiff’s statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 12, 13, and 16 (including paper numbers) revealed to correspond to the Plaintiff’s above assertion are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 8 (including each number, Eul’s statements and images, and fact inquiry into the Jinjin-gu Office in the first instance; i.e., the entire pleadings conducted around August 2008 and around October 201: (a) the land in this case was actually classified as forests and fields, and it was found that it was difficult to find out any trace of the Plaintiff’s sale or management of the forest in this case; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was difficult to believe that the land in this case was divided into the Plaintiff’s forest and field No. 98 years without knowing that it was divided into the Plaintiff’s forest and field No. 97 years since it was found that the land in this case was actually divided into the Plaintiff’s forest and field No. 98 years.