The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that, since the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) purchased and occupied the area of 1263 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) in the spring in 1972, the Plaintiff’s acquisition by prescription was completed on June 1, 1992, the Defendant, as the deceased’s heir, is obligated to implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription and to deliver the said land.

The land of this case was owned by E from June 29, 1983, and on November 26, 199, the ownership of this case was transferred to the defendant.

(A) Nos. 1 and 2. However, where the possessor has completed the registration of ownership transfer before the completion of the acquisition by prescription, even if the registration in the name of a third party is null and void, the possessor may only file a claim against the owner at the time of the completion of the acquisition by prescription, barring any special circumstance, for the cancellation of the registration invalidation of the cause made in the name of a third party by subrogation of the owner at the time of the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da50666, 50673 Decided April 12, 1994, and Supreme Court Decision 2001Da77352, 77369 Decided March 15, 2002, etc.). However, since the Plaintiff seeks the registration of ownership transfer for the completion of the acquisition by prescription to the Defendant who acquired ownership after June 1, 1992, claiming that the acquisition by prescription has been completed, the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer cannot be accepted, and as long as the claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendant is not recognized, the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer of ownership cannot be accepted.