A. With respect to the land released from the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land for convenience”), ① ownership transfer registration has been completed on September 29, 1965; ② on March 25, 1975, the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer upon the promise to trade (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) was completed in the future on March 25, 1975; ③ on October 31, 2011, the additional registration of the above provisional registration pursuant to the “transfer of ownership transfer right” was completed in the Defendant’s future on October 31, 201, without dispute between the parties; ② the Plaintiff’s heir’s heir’s right to claim ownership transfer registration of this case from D around 1966 and the Plaintiff’s heir’s right to claim ownership transfer registration of this case had already been completed on September 1, 1965, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s heir’s right to claim ownership transfer registration of this case had already been terminated within 96.

B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) as the possession of the Plaintiff’s side of the instant land is so-called the so-called possession; (b) it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by prescription; and (c) the Plaintiff later caused the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period for the instant land.