The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of prescription, the title holder of the land under the former Land Investigation Decree (Ordinance No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912) shall be the owner at the time of completion of prescription, and if at least the land investigation division was prepared and circumstances were under the former Land Investigation Ordinance, he/she shall be the title holder or his/her heir (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da59132, Feb. 23, 199). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, each of the instant lands was unregistered and the land investigation division did not remain, but the Plaintiff’s name was written in the 6th anniversary of the completion of prescription, and the possibility that each of the instant lands was owned by the Plaintiff’s clanF’s title trust or non-permanent title trust on May 1, 195, and each of the instant lands, other than the Plaintiff’s land to be owned by the Plaintiff, was indicated in the name of 6th or non-owned land.