1. The Defendants were on July 10, 2017, with respect to one-third of each share of D Forest land of 10,630 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, the Plaintiff.

1. Defendant C asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful, since it was not filed by the resolution of the Plaintiff’s general meeting convened through legitimate procedures.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above defendant's assertion, and the above defendant's main defense is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is entitled to recognize the fact of title trust of one-third of each of the instant forest land to the Defendants and E. The fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the title trust was served on July 10, 2017 on the Defendants on the last day.

Therefore, the Defendants, the title trustee, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the termination of title trust as of July 10, 2017, with respect to one-third share of each of the instant forest land to the Plaintiff, the title truster.

B. As to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C acknowledged the fact that 1/3 of the instant forest was nominal by the Plaintiff, and asserted that the instant forest should not be disposed of on the other hand because the graves of the Plaintiff clan were installed in the instant forest. Since the Plaintiff intended to sell the instant forest to another person, Defendant C cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

However, there is no evidence to prove the facts alleged by the above defendant, and the above facts alone are insufficient to deem that the above defendant, the title trustee, is exempted from the obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer concerning shares held in title trust

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.