2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Judgment of the court of first instance No. 1-B.

2. To correct “A” in the second and second half of the judgment of the first instance, which is added or written, to “A” and to delete “A” in the third and sixth third and sixth third and sixth third third and six.

The grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance No.2

B. The following is added at the end of paragraph (3). The Supreme Court Decision 2011Da59445 Decided March 15, 2012 cited by the Defendant in the grounds of appeal is inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, on the basis of the legal principle that, in a case where: (a) one of the successors of real estate, who was the owner of real estate, was donated the real estate from the owner, but did not register the ownership transfer; (b) the inheritance commences due to the death of the real estate owner; and (c) the period of prescription for the possessor’s possession expires after the death, the heir’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration based on the donation to the decedent who was the heir, within the scope of his/her own inheritance shares; (c) the heir cannot be deemed a new interested party after the completion

(A) According to the fact-finding on the G pages of this court, D is recognized to have died on November 4, 2009. The plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 16, 2009 on the real estate of this case on the ground of donation dated October 5, 2009, which was before D's death, and therefore, it is recognized that the ownership of the real estate of this case was acquired on the ground of donation rather than donation. Meanwhile, the defendant is recognized to have been acquired on the ground of donation rather than inheritance. Meanwhile, since the plaintiff is a child of D, and it is well known that the completion of the prescription period for acquisition by possession of the defendant was completed, the plaintiff does not constitute "new interested person after