1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was around March 1962 that the Plaintiff created a dry field on the land occupied by the instant land and cultivated it on the ground of its original owner for a period of 20 years after purchasing the instant land from D, the original owner, and it was peace and openly occupied as its owner’s intent.

Therefore, the Defendant, the owner of the instant land, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on March 31, 1982 with respect to the instant land occupied by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. There is no dispute between the parties, or according to Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 5, and witness E’s partial statement, the fact that the defendant owned the land in this case, and the plaintiff occupied the land in this case from March 1, 1962 to the date of closing the argument in this case.

B. The prescriptive acquisitor due to the possession of real estate has the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the true owner at the time of completion of the prescriptive acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da10989, Sept. 14, 1993). Even if the acquisition period of real estate ownership due to possession has expired, if the person occupying the real estate has first filed ownership transfer registration under a third party’s name between the non-registration under his/her own name and dumping it, the possessor cannot claim the prescriptive acquisition against the third party, barring any special

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da22883 delivered on September 28, 1993, etc.). However, in cases where the above third party is the inheritor of the owner at the time of completion of the acquisition by prescription, only that third party may seek the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription against the said third party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da77352 Decided March 15, 2002, etc.). According to the facts stated in the above paragraph (a) above, the acquisition period for the Plaintiff’s land possession of this case was completed on March 1, 1982 after the lapse of 20 years from the commencement date of possession.

However, Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul.