1. The defendant on May 1, 1996, as to the real estate stated in the attached list 1, as to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The report on the survey of the forest land concerning Gyeonggiwon-gun B conducted under the Joseon Forest Survey Order is written by C with the address in B as the owner of the above D forest land 1,200 square meters and E forest land 1,700 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest land”).

B. Of the instant forest land, D was divided and registered as one real estate in the separate sheet, and the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership of real estate in the separate sheet as stated in paragraph (1) of the order.

C. Meanwhile, on March 25, 1938, C, the permanent domicile of which was F, was the Suwon-gun of Gyeonggi-do (the name of the administrative district was changed to the Sungsung-gun), died, and G, the head of South-Nam, died on May 5, 1959, and C, upon the death of the two on December 19, 1956, the Plaintiff inherited G’s property by inheritance with the head of the said H’s son.

(The enforcement date of the Civil Act enacted by Act No. 471 of February 22, 1958 is January 1, 1960, and at the time of death of C, the head of South Korea shall solely inherit in accordance with the customary law). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 7 (including the provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to real estate listed in the annexed list 1, a person registered as the owner in the forest survey report under the Ordinance on the Investigation into the Forestry and Land of the Republic of Korea shall be presumed to have been assessed as the forest owner and the circumstance thereof becomes final and conclusive unless there is any counter-proof that the situation has been changed by an adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 8Meu9852, 9869, Oct. 24, 1989). If it is proved that there is a separate person in the circumstance of the land, the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership with respect to the land shall be broken and the registration shall be deemed to be null and void unless the registered titleholder asserts and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da46138 delivered on October 25, 2007). (2) As recognized above, the Plaintiff’s fleet C and C, the title holder of the circumstance, are the same as the name holder, and they are entered in B, the title holder of each land of this case, as C’s residence.