A. Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) is the land assessed on June 30, 1913 by the Plaintiff’s lighting b.

B. On October 14, 2002, C, a sole heir of the network B, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for confirmation of ownership, etc. as the District Court Decision 2000Kadan874 regarding the instant real estate and received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “final and conclusive judgment”).

C. On October 7, 2013, the Defendant completed each of the registrations of initial ownership (hereinafter in this case, each of the instant registrations of initial ownership) under No. 12368 on the same day of receipt of the annual District Court’s annual registry office of the Republic of Korea.

C died on November 28, 2010, and the plaintiff is the sole heir of C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 14, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to deem that each registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate of this case is invalid, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of each registration of preservation of ownership

B. The defendant's defense 1) since July 27, 1957, the defendant occupied and managed the so-called Bunched Zone as the intention of ownership, including this real estate, from July 27, 1957, and the acquisition by prescription was completed.

B) The filing of the instant lawsuit is in violation of the principle of invalidation under Article 2 of the Civil Act, even though 12 years have not elapsed since the final and conclusive judgment of this case, and the filing of the instant lawsuit goes against the principle of invalidation under Article 2 of the Civil Act. (2) The claim for the acquisition of prescription cannot be allowed as a claim contrary to the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment of this case, and the possessor’s legal act or other legal requirements, which may serve as the cause of the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, are not satisfied.