1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 1974, the network D completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on January 15, 1974 with respect to the land of 1,501 square meters (hereinafter “real estate”) and the land of 1,722 square meters prior to Gangnam-gun E, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, and G. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 30, 209 with respect to each of the above real estate on January 15, 2010.

B. On November 25, 1995, the Defendant completed each registration of ownership preservation with respect to the area of 2,122 square meters and the area of 2,641 square meters prior to B on November 25, 1995.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's entry in the evidence 3-3-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On February 24, 1974, the first owner of land E, G, B, and C is H, and the network D, the husband of the Plaintiff, purchased land E, G, and C with the land E from H on February 24, 1974.

In addition, each of the above lands has been transferred three times from H, the first owner, and thereafter the network D purchased it around the above time.

The Plaintiff, along with the network D, has installed and managed a tomb in B and C’s land with its own intention from the above time to the present time, or has occupied it in peace and public performance by directly cultivating, or leasing and cultivating it to a third party.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff started possession of B and C with the network D, the acquisition by prescription was completed on November 24, 2015 after the lapse of 20 years from November 25, 1995, counting from November 25, 1995, from which the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on B and C’s land, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on November 24, 2015 with respect to B and C’s land.

B. The circumstances leading up to Defendant Net D’s purchase of land B and C are unclear, and C’s land was miscellaneous land for a long time or idle land within a natural forest, and there is no trace of cultivation. Therefore, the Plaintiff or network D’s occupation of land B and C cannot be deemed as having been occupied.

In addition, the plaintiff or the network D occupied the land B and C for 20 years.