2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Since around June 1, 1994, the Plaintiff occupied each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) from around June 1, 1994, the acquisition by prescription was completed on June 2, 2014.

나. 이 사건 각 부동산은 피고들의 외조부(外祖父)인 망 E(이하 ‘망인’이라 한다)이 사정받은 토지로서 망인 사망 후 현재 피고들이 상속받아 소유하고 있다.

C. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of possession on June 2, 2014 after the registration for ownership transfer was completed for each of the instant real estate.

2. We examine the judgment, where the acquisition by prescription has been completed, the validity of the acquisition by prescription is that the Defendants acquire the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer against the owner at the time of the completion of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da71858, Dec. 24, 2009). In this case, even if it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant real estate from around December 1994, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendants were the owner of each of the instant real estate as of June 2, 2014, which was alleged by the Plaintiff as the date of completion of prescription, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion based on the premise that the Defendants are owners of the instant real estate as of June 2, 2014 is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.