1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. Each K is of a size of 645 square meters in the Republic of Korea, Jeonnam-gun Lane.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around July 27, 1974, the deceased M& (the deceased on July 27, 1989) newly built a 645 square meter (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) on the ground of YYYYY-gun, Jeonnam-nam, for the possession of the instant land, by 43.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”) of a single-story splate splate splate land, farming house, and 43.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”) and thereafter, K succeeded to the deceased M’s property through consultation among the successors until December 31, 1994.

B. The instant land is registered under the name of the network N (Death of December 3, 1997) on March 16, 1994. Defendant B is a married couple of the network N, and the remaining Defendants are children of the networkO of the children inherited by Australia.

C. On May 11, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased the said land from K with KRW 9 million and paid the said price in full on the 13th of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 4, 6, 8, 11 through 15, 17, and 55, witness P and Q's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff subrogated to K for judgment on the primary claim that the deceased N sold the above land to the deceased M on or around 1945, and the defendants asserted that K is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration pursuant to each inheritance share among the above land. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff purchased the above land from the deceased N, and there is no reason to believe that the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. According to the judgment of the first instance on the conjunctive claim, K, who succeeded to the possession of the deceased and the deceased, occupied the instant land from around 1974 to 20 years. In accordance with Article 197 of the Civil Act, it is presumed that the deceased and K had possession of the instant land in peace and openly with their intent to own the instant land during the said period, and the acquisition by prescription on December 31, 1994 was completed.

As such, among the land in this case, Defendant B’s share 4/28, and the remaining Defendants’ share 3/28, respectively, are subject to the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on December 31, 1994 due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription.