1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. As to the cause of claim

A. On May 3, 2016, K land: (a) Jannam-gun, Youngnam-gun, Jannam-gun on May 3, 2016 (hereinafter “previous land”).

(L) was divided into the parts of the deceased, and the deceased L (hereinafter referred to as “L”).

(2) On October 10, 197, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the previous land on the ground of “sale on October 7, 1977.” (2) From November 18, 1979 to the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Plaintiff occupies all the previous land, J and K after division.

3) The net L (hereinafter referred to as “L”)

The Defendants died on June 23, 1990, and the Defendants are heirs of L. [The facts that there is no dispute over a part of the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the witness M’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. The possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, in a peaceful and public performance manner with his own intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), and if he had possessed in both cases before and after, his possession is presumed to have been continued.

(Article 198 of the Civil Act) In addition to the facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff occupied the previous land from November 18, 1979 to the date of the closing of argument in this case, and thereafter J and K land after division. The Plaintiff’s possession is presumed to be of peace and public performance with its own intent.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on November 18, 1999 with respect to the portion of claims stated in J and K’s land.

2. As to the defendants' defenses

A. In light of the circumstances, such as the absence of evidence to prove that the Plaintiff purchased the previous land around November 18, 1979, as alleged by the Defendants, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff occupied the previous land without permission knowing the fact that there was no legal act or other legal requirements for acquiring ownership at the time of commencing the possession of the previous land.

Therefore, the plaintiff has the intention to own.