1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 19, 1966, D, the main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion, has been occupied and managed after acquiring the ownership of the instant forest land.

D’s brothers and sisters filed a lawsuit against D seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant forest land, but the judgment dismissing the lawsuit was rendered on August 14, 1993.

D In the event that the financial situation of the livestock farming business operated by it has deteriorated, on December 19, 198, the forest of this case was put in the name of the Defendant’s mother E, but continued to occupy and manage the forest of this case even thereafter.

On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff began to occupy the forest of this case after receiving the donation from D.

D The instant forest land was acquired by prescription on August 14, 2013 after the lapse of 20 years from the date the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on August 14, 2013 with respect to the forest of this case to the Plaintiff who succeeded to D’s possession.

2. According to the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2 of the judgment of the court below, as to the forest of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed with No. 951 on July 19, 196 for the forest of this case as to No. 1-2 and No. 2. The defendant's mother died on February 25, 2016, and the defendant inherited the forest of this case as to the forest of this case as of Apr. 8, 1963 by No. 13020 on Dec. 19, 198, No. 13020 on Dec. 19, 1998, and No. 13020 on Dec. 17, 1998.

However, even after the fact of recognition or the evidence submitted in this case alone, D has occupied and managed the forest of this case in the possession of the forest of this case, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff succeeded to the possession and possessed it until the closing date of the argument in this case. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff is based on this premise.