1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion D (the death of July 24, 2006) owned the land of Soyang-gu, Soyang-gu, Kuyang-gu, C large 281 square meters (the instant land). Around November 1, 1969 through a title trust registration completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant, but D even thereafter did not live in the instant land.

In the 1980s, the Plaintiff received a donation of the instant land from D, and cultivated vegetables, etc. in the instant land, and even if not, the Plaintiff received a sole inheritance of the instant land after D and continued to occupy the instant land in peace and openly and openly as its own intent.

Therefore, as to the instant land, the period of prescription for acquisition of possession has expired at the latest on December 31, 2010 or on December 31, 2017 after 20 years after the Plaintiff’s possession or the Plaintiff’s commencement of possession succeeded. Therefore, the Defendant, who is the nominal owner on the registry of the instant land, is obliged to implement the procedure for registration for transfer of ownership due to the completion of the period of prescription on December 31, 2010 or December 31, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries or videos set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 9 (including additional numbers), the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 2, 1965 with respect to the land of this case by the deceased's father, due to the completion of repayment on April 2, 1965. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 19, 1969 due to sale on October 16, 1969; the deceased on July 24, 2006; the deceased's heir died on June 22, 2018; the deceased's heir agreed on the division of inherited property to the effect that the Plaintiff shall own the Plaintiff's right to claim the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case; and the fact that the Plaintiff currently occupies the land of this case can be recognized respectively.

B. However, in full view of the following facts, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the instant land by prescription on December 31, 2010 or December 31, 2017, by continuously occupying the instant land with the intent to own it for 20 years.

1...