1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2.(a)

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

B. The plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment (1. 1.). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On October 13, 1995, the Plaintiff’s assertion L of the claim against Defendant B (a) commenced the business of gas stations after obtaining permission for construction around 1995, or on July 5, 1996, the report on the installation of specific facilities subject to the control of soil contamination regarding gas stations of this case was filed on or around October 13, 1995, on which the Plaintiff started the business of gas stations. From around July 5, 1996, the Plaintiff commenced the possession of the above land while installing the gas stations and related facilities on the land of this case.

The above land and the gas station of this case were transferred to the order of L, C, D, and the defendant.

At least 20 years from the commencement of L occupancy, the period of prescription for the possession of the land in the dispute of this case was completed on October 13, 2015 or on July 5, 2016.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the land in the dispute to the Plaintiff.

B) The summary of Defendant B’s assertion begins with the possession of the land indicated in the attached Table No. 2 from October 9, 195, which completed the fourth underground storage tank on the ground of the land in the dispute of this case, around June 30, 1995, when the construction of the gas station of this case commenced, and the Plaintiff succeeding to the possession of L has the right due to the completion of the prescription of possession on the land in the dispute of this case on June 30, 2015 or October 9, 2015. Since Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land in this case on October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff cannot claim against Defendant B the right due to the prescriptive acquisition, even if the prescription acquisition on the land in this case was completed, the ownership transfer registration on the land in this case cannot be claimed against the third party.