1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. On December 31, 1974, the basic facts E completed the registration of ownership transfer on the forest of this case due to sale on December 28, 1974.

On September 5, 1985, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 5, 1985 with respect to one-half portion of the instant forest.

On July 21, 2000, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff was transferred to F on June 12, 200.

On January 7, 201, the registration of ownership transfer in F’s name 1/2 shares was transferred to Defendant B on December 1, 201.

On March 25, 2013, with respect to Defendant B’s 1/2 share, the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of share (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) was completed in Defendant C’s name on the grounds of the trade reservation on March 21, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence No. 1

A. The Plaintiff’s forest land was owned by Defendant E, which was owned by Defendant B. The Plaintiff purchased 1/2 shares out of the forest land of this case from E and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 5, 1985. From July 21, 200 to F, title trust was held against the Plaintiff.

On January 7, 2011, the title trust was completed with F on the title trust with E and re-title trust to Defendant B. However, on March 25, 2013, Defendant C completed the provisional registration of this case on the following grounds: (a) Defendant B’s wife was working in the multi-stage business and unstable; and (b) Defendant B’s wife was seeking to make provisional registration in the form of a provisional registration.

Therefore, since the provisional registration of this case is null and void because it falls under the false declaration of conspiracy, the defendant C is obligated to cancel it, and the defendant B is obligated to register the transfer of ownership based on the restoration of authentic name instead of cancelling the registration of title trust.

B. Although the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant E purchased 1/2 of the forest land of this case from Defendant E, it is only the fact that the Plaintiff deceptioned E to have a claim of approximately KRW 1,300,000, and completed the registration of share ownership transfer.

Since then, the plaintiff returned it to E, who is the owner, and returned it to the original state in the name of defendant B, and held the title trust with the defendant B.