1. The defendant is based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on April 1, 2009, with respect to B 1256 square meters per week to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father, the father of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on April 25, 1969, as to D 439 square meters (hereinafter “land before the instant land substitution”).

B. On December 26, 1974, the land area prior to the instant land substitution was completed in E, E, E, 380 square meters. On September 27, 1978, the deceased was written as the owner on September 27, 1978 on the old land cadastre of E, E, 380 square meters, and the area was converted into the area of 256 square meters on July 7, 197.

(hereinafter referred to as the “land after the instant land substitution” with the above E field 1256 square meters.

Meanwhile, as the registry (registration No. 18814) was prepared by Farmland Improvement Act on September 27, 1978 with respect to the land after the instant replotting on April 28, 1922, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of F Co., Ltd. as of the date of receipt on April 28, 1922, and the said registry was closed on August 29, 2001. The registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the Defendant as of August 23, 2001, when it was computerized on August 23, 2001 pursuant to Article 177-6 (1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and was completed on April 28, 1922 as of April 5659.

The Deceased cultivated the land after the instant land substitution, and donated the land to G on October 20, 1979. G cultivated this, and donated the land to the Plaintiff who was a vegetant on April 1, 1989. From around that time, the Plaintiff occupied and used the land to H, I, etc. by leasing the land to H, I, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 17 (including additional numbers), fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding on the Jeju market, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the land after the land substitution of this case is owned by the deceased, registration of ownership transfer should be completed in the name of the deceased, but the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of FF corporation due to mistake at the time of preparation of the register under Farmland Improvement Act, and was erroneous in the name of the defendant in the course of closing the above