1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s net C and the Defendant’s father’s net D are siblings.

Attached Form

The real estate indicated in the list (hereinafter referred to as “the forest of this case”) was owned by the network E, an Arabic land of the Plaintiff.

In around 1959, the network E set forth the portion of (B) part 1457 square meters inside the ship (hereinafter “instant land”) that connects each point of the annexed drawing Nos. 1,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 1 among the instant forest land as the share of the Plaintiff and the network C couple.

The plaintiff and the deceased C have been a farmer in the part of the land of this case since that time. Since the deceased on February 28, 2002, the plaintiff and the deceased had been a farmer with the help of the son F and the Domini G.

Since the plaintiff started to collect property from Simbin E in around 1959 and set up dry field farming houses, the plaintiff has been suffering from farming houses until now.

Therefore, with respect to the land of this case, the acquisition by prescription has been completed by occupying it for a long time more than 50 years with the intention to own it in peace and public performance.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on completion of the prescriptive acquisition with respect to the instant land portion to the Plaintiff.

B. Considering the following facts as a whole, the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and each of the testimony by the witness H, I, and J, it is difficult to view that the acquisition by prescription was completed since the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land out of the Plaintiff’s forest land cannot be deemed as possession independently, and it cannot be deemed that the acquisition by prescription was completed.

First, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the following facts can be acknowledged.

The forest land of this case, including the land of this case, is originally the plaintiff's city and the defendant's land, and the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the future E, which is the defendant's land, but the Jeonju District Court No. 24496, Dec. 19, 198, as the defendant's father, D.