1. As to the 21820m20m2 of the forest land in racing-si:

A. Defendant B is the Daegu District Court Branch of the racing as of May 16, 1994, No. 23624.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 7, 197, 6 years from 197, 6 years from e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., 4 non-o., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.,

B. The deceased died on October 26, 1970, and the plaintiff and the defendant C are children of J who died on January 2, 1995 as the son of the above F (the defendant C is the son of the above F).

Defendant B applied for the issuance of a confirmation under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, effective) to the effect that he actually purchased and owns the forest of this case on July 8, 1983, and provided that the forest of this case is currently being purchased and actually owned by B from the owner F who was registered in the forest ledger from July 8, 1983. Based on the above guarantee guarantee, Defendant B issued a guarantee certificate of the content that “The forest of this case was actually owned by B, and Defendant B completed the registration of the preservation of ownership (hereinafter “the preservation registration of this case”) with respect to the forest of this case as of May 16, 1994 under the Act on Special Measures.

(d)

After that, Defendant C confirmed the fact that the preservation of the forest of this case was completed with respect to the forest of this case, and the Defendant B confirmed that the preservation registration of this case was wrong, and decided to return the forest of this case to the deceased’s descendants. Defendant C issued necessary documents prior to the registration. Defendant C completed the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “registration of transfer of this case”) in its own name as of May 19, 2003 as of the forest of this case pursuant to the Daegu District Court Decision 26392 on May 19, 2003.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 1-4, Gap No. 2, 5, 6, 7.