1. The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. Defendant B’s answer to the Plaintiff, 3712.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is one of the successors of M (Death around October 1950). 2) The remainder of the Defendants except Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant C, etc.”) is N (Death on November 6, 2007)’s successors.

B. M completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 8, 1948 with respect to the land of the Gu Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 999, Mar. 17, 1959, which received on November 30, 1956; Daejeon District Court Decision 3266, Apr. 9, 1966, which received on April 9, 1966, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of N on April 7, 1966.

C. On August 19, 1996, the above land was substituted with the land of this case under an improvement project, such as agricultural infrastructure, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land, whether before or after replotting”) D.

N has been directly or indirectly occupying the instant land from April 1966, and Defendant C, etc. succeeded to possession of the instant land from N.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry (including each number) in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, fact-finding with respect to the subordinate authorities of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that M was a civilian sacrifice case committed by the military police around October 1950, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B or transfer of ownership in the N based on the name of Defendant B, which was completed on November 30, 1956, after M’s death, is entirely null and void.

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to cancel each of the above registration of ownership transfer.

B. The gist of the assertion by Defendant C, etc. is that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B and N as to the land of this case has been completed lawfully, and even if not, Defendant C, etc., who is the N or its heir, had occupied the land of this case or acquired the prescription by prescription.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

(a) related;