1. The Defendants’ acquisition by prescription on March 13, 1963 with respect to each of the respective shares in the land listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) was subject to the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D on March 13, 1943 on the grounds of sale on December 2, 1942. As D died on September 29, 1996, the registration of ownership transfer was made on April 11, 2016 in the name of the Defendants, who are their children.

B. E died of October 30, 1998 due to the birth of D, and succeeded to the rights and obligations of F, G, H, I, J, K, and the Plaintiff, their children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s land purchased E and registered in D name from that time, and thereafter, E and the Plaintiff’s brothers and sisters cultivated up to that time. After the death of E, the inheritor agreed that the Plaintiff acquires all rights to the instant land.

Therefore, the prescriptive acquisition of March 12, 1963, which was registered in D’s name, was completed on March 13, 194 and 20 years elapsed since March 13, 194, and the Defendants agreed to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff on January 17, 2016.

Accordingly, the plaintiff primarily seeks the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure by the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

B. Since the Defendants purchased the instant land by D, and D had them cultivated by leasing it to E, possession by the Plaintiff, etc., who is E and its heir, is an owner possession. There is no fact that the Defendants agreed to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff on January 17, 2016.

In addition, since the E's heir is several, the plaintiff alone cannot file a claim for ownership transfer registration.

3. Determination

A. It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendants agreed to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff on January 17, 2016, solely on the basis of the statements in the evidence Nos. 11 and 12 as to the primary claim and the result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination.