1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On April 25, 1953, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large scale 162 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On April 8, 1963, the Plaintiff, his father, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 10 square meters (hereinafter “instant 2 land”). At that time, on the second land of this case, 19.83 square meters of the 19.83 square meters of the 2nd building (hereinafter “instant building”) were newly constructed on the ground of the instant 2nd land. due to the error of land boundary surveying, the Plaintiff occupied 31 square meters of the 1st land of this case (hereinafter “3st land”).

C. Since the net C has occupied the land No. 3 in peace and openly with its intent to own it for more than 20 years, the acquisition by prescription for the land No. 3 was completed, and the Defendant has the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership based on the prescriptive acquisition for the land No. 3.

As the deceased C dies, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land No. 2 of this case on October 18, 2012, acquired ownership of the building of this case, and acquired the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the third land of this case against the deceased C.

E. Around May 15, 2015, E Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant partnership”) accepted the instant third land and deposited the land expropriation compensation.

F. Ultimately, the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff regarding the land No. 3 of this case was impossible, and the Plaintiff became entitled to the claim for the compensation deposited by the instant association.

2. Determination

A. The effect of impossibility of performance under the Civil Act does not stipulate the creditor's right to compensatory damages and the right to cancel the contract separately, but there is no reason to deny the right to claim the subject matter, but there is no reason to deny the right to claim the ownership due to possession.