1. Of 2,013 square meters of D forest land in Gwangju City, 6/8 shares in Plaintiff A and 1/8 shares are owned respectively by Plaintiff B and Plaintiff C.

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Land Survey Book drawn up in the Japanese Occupation Period, the Gyeonggi-do Seoul-gun’s approximately 609 square meters was under the circumstances of “E”.

The above-mentioned land became a 2,013 square meters of forest land in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”) through the procedure for changing administrative district and converting the area into a unit.

B. The instant land is unregistered, and is land to be restored by the landowner in the forestry cadastral book.

C. On March 15, 1953, F, the Plaintiffs’ prior to the election, died on March 15, 1953, and G, the head of Australia’s heir, succeeded to F’s property solely.

G was killed on August 31, 1975, and his wife died first, and the plaintiffs, their children, succeeded to G's property. The plaintiff A succeeded to Australia, and the plaintiff B and C were married on May 1974 and did not have the same family register at the time of G death.

According to the Civil Code at the time, the property inheritor who is the head of family shall add 50 percent to the inherited portion, and the inherited portion for women shall be 1/2 of the inherited portion for men, and the inherited portion for women who are not in the same place is 1/4 of the inherited portion for men.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' statutory share of inheritance due to the death of G is 1/8 each of the shares of inheritance between the plaintiff A and the plaintiff C, who had not been the same family register due to marriage and 6/8 of the plaintiff who inherited Australia.

E. The legal domicile of the plaintiffs F is Gyeonggi-si I, and the full-time address of the plaintiffs' submitted G is also Gyeonggi-do I.

F. There is no F and Dong name from among those who have a permanent domicile in the Gyeonggi-siJ.

[Ground of recognition] 1 to 5 evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including paper numbers), the fact-finding results on K pages, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Considering the aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances revealed in the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the same person is the Plaintiff’s prior F and E, a real name of the land of this case.

① The names of F and E, one of the circumstances of the plaintiffs, are the same.

② The land survey division has the address of E, the assessment titleholder, and the legal domicile of the Plaintiff’s prior domicile was J in Gwangju-gun.