1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 25, 1965, the land of 645 square meters prior to Gangnam-gun, Gangwon-gun (hereinafter “Before subdivision”) was restored to the land by Nonparty C as its owner. On March 22, 1985, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name C was completed, and thereafter the ownership was transferred to D on July 22, 2002 through several Nonparty.

B. Since January 2, 2009, the land prior to the subdivision was divided into 352 square meters (hereinafter “B”) and 293 square meters (hereinafter “E land”), respectively, and the land B via multiple owners was transferred to Pyeongtaek-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Sejong-si”); on July 7, 2015, the land B was transferred to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. on August 26, 2010, to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the Plaintiff’s promotion (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

C. However, on January 5, 1971, the land before subdivision and its location are the same as that before subdivision C as the owner of the sub-party C, who is the owner of the sub-party C, and the land was restored to the land and registered in the forestry register.

On November 22, 1971, the registration of ownership preservation was made with respect to the forest of this case, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Nonparty F via several owners.

The Defendant notified that “The land B, E, and the forest land of this case constitute “land subject to cancellation of the registered matters in the cadastral record” under Article 84 of the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records and Article 93 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act,” which had different scales from the forest land before subdivision and the forest land of this case registered in the same location respectively in the land cadastre and the forest land cadastre.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the land actually identical to the forest land in this case, and the land cadastre and the forest land register are separate after double cadastral records were restored.