1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

In the Gu land cadastre of B forest land of 833 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, the “E” residing in C” (hereinafter “C”) is registered as being under the assessment of the instant forest land on August 20, 1913.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff asserted the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff did not dispute; (b) the evidence No. 1 and No. 1; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (d) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, on August 20, 1913, occupied the forest land of this case in a peaceful and openly performing manner with its own intent to own the forest land.

In addition, since the forest land of this case was a stateless real estate in the name of "E", the defendant acquired the ownership in accordance with Article 252 (2) of the Civil Code because it was a stateless real estate.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on August 31, 193, which was 20 years after the date of the above circumstances, to the plaintiff on the ground of the completion of acquisition by prescription.

Judgment

A. To accept the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the prescriptive prescription against the Defendant, the Defendant shall be recognized as the owner of the instant forest from the time the prescriptive prescription is completed to the date of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of possession, and on that premise, the fact that the instant forest is a de facto real estate should be recognized. If so, the fact that the “E”, who is the title holder of the instant forest, is an unqualified and that the Plaintiff received the assessment of the instant forest under

(In theory, it is doubtful whether the forest of this case becomes a non-owned real estate on the ground that it is acknowledged that the forest of this case is permitted by E and the Plaintiff was under the name of E).

Therefore, we first examine whether the “E”, the assessment title of the forest of this case, is a de facto and the Plaintiff received the assessment of the forest of this case in the name of E.

Plaintiff

A witness F, who has been working as a chief secretary since 2014, has been employed in this court. ① The forest of this case is the Plaintiff’s closing members from before this court.