1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The network D and network E were registered as co-owners of each 1/2 equity share with respect to the 516 square meters in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

B. On January 9, 1957, the shares of the network D were inherited to the deceased F, and on June 25, 2004, the deceased F completed the registration of transfer of shares based on donation to the deceased G, a child, on the ground that the shares were donated, and the Plaintiff acquired the shares by inheritance by agreement and division.

C. The deceased on December 31, 1985. The deceased on December 31, 1985. The deceased on his/her child had the deceased H and the deceased without any other family member. The deceased on January 8, 1990, the deceased on January 8, 199, and the Defendant is recognized.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, as the deceased’s heir, is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of donation as to the instant shares, since he donated the instant shares to the deceased E on March 17, 1949.

B. However, the statements of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 10 (including each number) and the testimony of the witness J alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact of donation by the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit without further review.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that since May 4, 1990, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si occupied the land size of 516 square meters in peace and public performance for at least 20 years, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on May 4, 2010 on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition.

B. However, the Plaintiff’s appointment of co-owner of the above land is as seen earlier, and even if one co-owner occupies the entire co-owner, it shall be deemed as the possession of the other co-owner within the limit of the share ratio (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1418, Dec. 13, 198), so the Plaintiff is above.