1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s revocation part shall be the Defendants.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows:

2. The Parties’ assertion;

3. Determination

A. The part as to whether the Plaintiff loses ownership is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal as follows. Therefore, the relevant part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3, Part 7, “S” in Part 7, and Part 20, “AF” in Q, respectively.

2. Whether the acquisition by prescription is completed;

A. The possession of an object refers to the objective relationship that appears to be in a person’s factual control under the social concept, and is not necessarily a mere physical actual control over an object. In order to say that there is a de facto control, it shall be determined in accordance with the social concept by taking into account the temporal relationship with the object, the temporal relationship with the object, the excluding others’ control, etc. In particular, the transfer of possession of forest land or the continuation of possession does not necessarily require a physical and realistic control (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da4705, Jun. 24, 2003).

In full view of the above facts, Eul's basic facts, Eul's evidence Nos. 4 through 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 through 18, testimony of witness at the trial court, defendant AS principal examination conducted in the trial court, fact inquiry results in the first instance court's inquiry into the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and the whole purport of arguments, the following facts, etc. can be acknowledged.

① Examining the relationship between the persons holding the preservation registration of forests and fields before division, L, M, N,O, P, and R are self-employed, and Q is AE’s wife.

(D) The forest land register for forest land was restored on December 30, 1964, and it stated that the ownership of the forest land has been transferred from the plaintiff, the title holder of the situation, to AE, and from AE, to the title holder of the preservation registration, the above preservation registration seems to have been inherited from AE). (2) Of each forest of this case, the forest land of this case is attached to D, BE, BJ, K, and E. 2.