1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 7, Gap evidence 11 (if any, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

The ownership or the transfer registration was made as follows with respect to the Fansan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City 896m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).

On September 23, 1920, the owner's registration of preservation of ownership on the registry on the registry on the date of registration date of May 6, 193, G of May 6, 193, H of March 17, 1937 on the sale on March 3, 193, 1937, I on July 31, 1950 of Australia Inheritance on December 31, 1970, the owner on the register on the register on the date of registration date of J of the J of the date of registration date of May 10, 1973, and on August 24, 2014, the inheritance by agreement on August 24, 2010.

B. L around May 195, around 1955, newly constructed a 39.6 square meters of a studio house on the ground of black brick structure, straw roof (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. The deceased K died on August 24, 2010, and his/her spouse was Defendant B, D, and E with his/her spouse, but the Defendant completed the inheritance registration by agreement division as above on April 4, 2014.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 195, L purchased the instant land from J and newly constructed the instant building on the ground. On June 18, 1992, L purchased the instant land and buildings from L around June 1992. Since the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for 20 years with the intention to own the instant land, the prescriptive acquisition for the instant land was completed.

B. Therefore, the Defendant, who is a sole heir of Dong K, the owner on the registry of the instant land, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on June 18, 2012 to the Plaintiff on the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition.

3. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land was purchased from L, i.e., the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the aforementioned facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 8 through 11, and Eul’s evidence No. 1.