1. As to the Plaintiff with respect to the size of 4,186 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do:

A. Defendant B shall have jurisdiction over the Cheongju District Court on December 12, 1971.

1. On September 30, 1912, the fact of recognition was determined as the owner around September 30, 1912 with respect to F forest land of 141,360 square meters (4276 square meters) in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do.

The Plaintiff’s father G, the Plaintiff’s father’s father, succeeded to the above land in succession.

On the other hand, the registration of preservation of ownership on the above land is not made, and the defendant B made a registration of preservation of ownership on the above FF forest land under Article 5 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest and Forest Ownership (Law No. 2111 of May 21, 1969) with the registration office No. 5304 of December 8, 1971.

On April 30, 1979, F forest land was divided into 141,360 square meters (4276 square meters) of F forest land into 9682 square meters of F forest land, D forest land 4,186 square meters, and thereafter, D was converted into land category prior to that.

(2) On April 15, 1983, the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s attached 4,186 square meters of the above D’s 4,186 square meters of forest land was aware of the fact that Defendant B completed the registration of preservation of ownership without any cause, and Defendant B demanded the return thereof. On April 15, 1983, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the above F forest land H’s attached 9682 square meters of forest land.

Defendant C received the registration of ownership transfer from the registry office of Cheongju District Court on the instant land under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 2295, Mar. 10, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was aware of the fact that the pertinent F forest land was registered as a preservation of ownership with Defendant B on the said F forest land’s 9682 square meters, and was aware of the existence of the instant land only thereafter. Since the registration of preservation of ownership in Defendant B’s name on the instant land is invalid as it was the same as the registration of preservation of ownership on the said F forest’s 9682 square meters, the instant land is concerned.