1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The forest survey report prepared during the Japanese occupation point period is written by B, C, D, E, F, and G as being the assessment of each of the lands of this case.

B. On March 26, 1965, each of the instant real estate stated in the forest land register as K with H’s address in the owner’s column due to the owner’s restoration on March 26, 1965, and the registration is not completed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. Since the Defendant’s assertion regarding each of the instant real estate is restored to the owner under the name I and K in each forest land register, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the Defendant, who is not the above I and K.

B. According to the above facts, although the above facts are indicated as the owner of I and K with the address in H in the cadastral register for each of the instant real estate unregistered in the state of non-registration, the above cadastral book was restored under the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975). Since there was no procedure for restoration of the destroyed cadastral book at the time of the enforcement of the above former Cadastral Act, the cadastral book restored for administrative convenience cannot be deemed as lawful. Therefore, the owner's entry cannot be deemed as the evidence proving ownership, and therefore, the above I and K did not contain the resident registration number for the above I and K (including the serial number) so if the purport of the entire pleadings is added, the above I and K's resident registration number cannot be inquired about the residence of each of the above addresses, and the plaintiff's interest in seeking the confirmation of ownership of each of the instant real estate exists against the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da58738 delivered on December 2, 1994, etc.). 3. Regarding each of the instant real estate.