The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

According to the judgment of the court below, the real estate of this case (the answer) is subject to the registration of ownership transfer from the defendant's fleet, but the real estate of this case (the defendant's co-defendant 2) is sold to the defendant's fleet of the non-party 1 (the co-defendant 2) on October 5, 1935, while the plaintiff's possession cultivation by delivery was carried out, the non-party 1 succeeded to the real estate according to the same route as the plaintiff's theory, although it was not registered, and since this recognition can be accepted by the evidence of its reasoning, the argument to criticize this is not acceptable.

In accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court Decision 76Da148 Decided November 6, 766) which held that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the non-party 1, who had been transferred the land in this case to the plaintiff in 1935 and cultivated until the time he delivered it to the plaintiff in 1974, is not subject to the extinctive prescription, it cannot be determined that the plaintiff's claim for registration against the defendant against the non-party 1, who had been possessed by the plaintiff in this case, was unlawful. Accordingly, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles in holding that the plaintiff's claim for registration against the non-party 1, who had been a creditor, had no claim against the defendant as the debtor against the non-party 1.

In other words, there is no illegality in the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff did not have the right of Nonparty 1 to subrogate to the defendant, and since the judgment of the court below that the sale and purchase of the main answer between the defendant and Nonparty 1 is in 1935, the right to claim for registration pursuant to this sale is at issue, and in that case, there is no room to require the certification of farmland trade in the office where the farmland is located under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Improvement Act, since the previous farmland reform Act was enforced, and there is a significant reason to require the certification of farmland trade in the office where the farmland is located. Thus, the court below's conclusion that the argument on this farmland certificate is legitimate, and

Since the part of the claim against the non-party 1 is obvious in the record that the first instance court accepted it, it is right and proper to take a measure that the court below did not judge it, and there is no violation of law of omission of judgment.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the arguments are without any reason or without length to be employed.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)