1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that he had occupied the land size of 926m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from June 7, 1965 to June 7, 1965 as the Plaintiff had occupied the land size of 926m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). As such, the period of prescription for the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant real estate was completed on June 7, 1985 after the lapse of 20 years from June 7, 1965. As such, the Defendant, a registered titleholder of the instant real estate, is liable to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition as of June 7, 1985 with respect to the instant real estate.

2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) if the ownership transfer registration based on the above donation was made in the future in the donee after the lapse of the period for the acquisition by prescription; (b) the registrant is a new interested person after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, barring any special circumstance; and (c) the possessor cannot oppose the completion of the acquisition by prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da59445, Mar. 15, 2012); (d) according to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant can be recognized as having completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the gift from Nonparty C, the spouse, on June 25, 2012, even if the Plaintiff’s acquisition by prescription was completed on June 7, 1985, the Defendant shall be deemed as a new interested person after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, barring any special circumstance where the ownership transfer registration based on the gift was completed after the completion of the acquisition by prescription. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff cannot oppose the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the plaintiff can oppose the defendant with the completion of the above prescription is without merit without further review.

Furthermore, in order to avoid the obligation to transfer ownership registration even though C knows that the acquisition by prescription for the Plaintiff’s real estate was completed, the Plaintiff’s wife is the Defendant.