1. The Defendants shall provide the Plaintiffs with the Gangnam-si District Court's Gangnam branch court with respect to one-half of the 27,494 square meters of forest land in Gangseo-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. H produced I, J, K (L; hereinafter referred to as “third SouthK”), M, N, K (O; hereinafter referred to as “six SouthK”), P, and Q.

B. 6 South Korea donated the 4th six parts of the K Forest of Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”) from H, and completed the registration of initial ownership on the instant land before the instant subdivision as the receipt of No. 15285 on December 2, 1974, which entered in the forest register, but the resident registration number was not entered in the register.

C. On January 1, 1995, the land before the instant partition became 27,494 square meters of G forest land in Gangseo-si (hereinafter “instant land”) after the division and change of the name of the administrative district, etc.

6 South Korea died on June 7, 200, and the plaintiff B, C, and D, his wife, jointly inherited the property of the plaintiff B, C, and D, 6 South Korea.

E. 3 South K had completed the registration of ownership transfer as stated in Paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer”) on the ground that the instant land was donated to the Defendants by 1/2 shares, using the fact that the same name is not recorded in the registry of the instant land by Dong-nam, Dong-nam, who is the same name in the registry of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Between the plaintiffs and defendant E: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (by service by public notice) and defendant F: The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are the successors of the land of this case, and they are obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the transfer of this case which is null and void upon the plaintiffs' claim for removal of interference based on ownership.

3. In conclusion, each claim against the Defendants by the Plaintiffs is justified and acceptable.