1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 31, 1941 on the grounds that the ownership transfer was reverted to the right of September 11, 1948 on the part of the Japan, Japan, the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the instant land”) and on November 25, 1996, on the grounds that the ownership transfer registration was completed on March 31, 1941.

B. The Plaintiff occupied the instant land and cultivated crops.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 5

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion - According to the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (Act No. 1346, May 29, 1963; hereinafter “Reversion Property Disposal Act”), any property devolving upon the State, the sales contract of which has not been concluded by the end of December 1, 1964, shall be deemed State property from January 1, 1965 and shall be possessed with the intent of ownership thereafter.

- The Plaintiff’s net D occupied and cultivated the instant land from the tidal wave to the Sea, and the Plaintiff was born from the house constructed on the instant land from the Japanese colonial era to the Japanese colonial era.

The plaintiff succeeded to the possession of the deceased from August 5, 1997 when D died to the present time, and is growing crops on the land of this case.

- From January 1, 1965, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have occupied the instant land with its intention to own it. As such, the prescription period for acquisition by possession was completed on January 1, 1985 after the lapse of 20 years.

- The acquisition by prescription was completed on November 25, 2016 even if the registration of ownership was completed on November 25, 1996 as the starting point for the acquisition by prescription.

- Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the instant land to the Plaintiff based on the completion of the prescription period for possession.

3. Determination

A. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the deceased D and the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for at least 20 years.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the prescription period for the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land has expired.

B. The facts alleged by the Plaintiff are true.