1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 14, 1993, the Defendant registered the preservation of ownership on July 11, 1995 in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the State Property Act, following the procedures for public announcement of non-owned real estate on October 14, 1993.

B. On August 20, 1952, the Plaintiff: (a) around 1940, the Plaintiff: (b) around 1940, the Plaintiff built a non-registered house of the first floor, warehouse, etc.; and (c) cultivated the surrounding land as a dry field until August 20, 1952; and (b) after the death of C, D, its husband, by inheritance, leases it to others, or directly cultivates and manages it.

On October 28, 2003, the Defendant asserted that he was inherited, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on September 15, 2002 regarding the registration of transfer of ownership with a parcel number attached thereto, on September 15, 2002, on the following occasions: the Defendant filed a lawsuit on September 2004, 2004Kacheon District Court 2004Kadan3140 on September 15, 2002 with respect to the land in front-gu E, Yang-gun-gun, Gangwon-do, 95 square meters, F large 96 square meters, G previous 1,243 square meters, and H 155 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the land in front”).

C. In the case of the appellate court 2005Na1739, in which the Defendant was dissatisfied with the above judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant’s claim for 950 square meters of E land, 47 square meters of F land, G land total, 62 square meters of H land, and 62 square meters of H land, among the previous land, is indicated in the purport of seeking the registration of ownership transfer for the entire land, but according to the evidence No. 8-2 (the content of the case), the Defendant’s claim for 950 square meters of land among E land, as stated in the above decision after surveying and appraising the land in the first instance court, appears to have been reduced to the extent of the part of the land indicated in

On September 15, 2002, the decision of recommending reconciliation was rendered on September 15, 2002 that "the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer was implemented due to the prescriptive acquisition," and the plaintiff and the defendant did not raise any objection within a legitimate period, and the said

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute between the parties, A.