1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s additional determination is prohibited from asserting the prescriptive acquisition against a third party, barring any special circumstance, if the possessor of the real estate has already completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of a third party and has abandoned the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the third party, even if the period of acquisition of ownership of the real estate has expired due to possession.

(Supreme Court Decision 93Da22883 Decided September 28, 1993) asserts that the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiff by acquiring prescription based on the precedent.

However, the above precedents held that if an ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of a third party after the expiration of the period of prescription, the third party who completed the registration may not assert the prescriptive acquisition against the plaintiff. However, since the above precedents do not apply to the case where the ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of the plaintiff before the expiration of the period of prescription for the acquisition of possession, it cannot be deemed that the change in the title of registration constitutes the cause of suspending the prescriptive acquisition, and thus the possessor may assert the prescriptive acquisition against the changed owner (Supreme Court Decision 75Da220,2221 delivered on March 9, 1976). The defendant may assert the prescriptive acquisition against the plaintiff.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.