1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 23, 1972, E divided the G forest of 22,314 square meters into G forest of 1,289 square meters and H forest of 3,273 square meters into 22,314 square meters.

On March 5, 1973, the Plaintiff completed each registration of ownership transfer on the said G forest land of 3,273 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land before subdivision”). On the same day, the Defendant completed each registration of ownership transfer on the said G forest of 1,289 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. On January 18, 2012, the Plaintiff registered the Plaintiff’s parcel number of the Plaintiff’s land before subdivision as D. On the same day, the Plaintiff divided C forest land 2,292 square meters and I forest land 214 square meters into D forest land, respectively. On January 19, 2012, the Plaintiff changed the land category of D forest land 767 square meters divided as above.

C. On December 15, 2015, on January 18, 2012, the head of Taean-Gun notified the Plaintiff and the Defendant of the submission of an application for boundary and land alteration on the ground that the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land before subdivision overlaps due to the mistake in forest construction and the Defendant’s land in the process of registration conversion of the Plaintiff’s land before subdivision. D.

On December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the head of Taean-Gun for land alteration, which was divided into the Plaintiff’s land prior to subdivision, and the said land C, 2,292 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). On December 21, 2016, the land alteration on the said land was completed.

As a result of the above land alteration, the Plaintiff’s land was transferred from the Defendant’s land to the F forest without any increase or decrease in its size.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, the fact inquiry result against the Taean-gun of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The boundary between the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land should be determined on the basis of the boundary at the time of subdivision on June 23, 1972. On December 21, 2016, the boundary newly established on December 21, 2016 is inconsistent with the existing boundary, and thus, the ownership cannot be determined on the basis thereof.

B. The plaintiff in the summary of the defendant's assertion is the defendant in this court.