1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendants are with respect to each of 1/5 shares of H 2,311 square meters in Sinju-si.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 11 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) H 2,311m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in the Si/Gu of Gongju-si

(2) On March 25, 1993, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the F’s portion on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division on December 19, 1961 under the name of the Plaintiff F and the Defendants. (2) On February 6, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 25, 1993.

3) The Defendants, other than the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer under the above paragraph (1) as to the instant land, did not actually possess or manage the instant land.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) the F paid the purchase and sale balance of the instant land; and (b) on December 19, 1981, from December 20, 1961, from December 20, 1961, occupied the entire instant land according to the intention of possession independently; (c) the Plaintiff succeeded to the possession of the instant land by F; and (d) the Defendants are demanding the implementation of each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession as to the Defendants’ share.

C. Article 245(1) of the Civil Act provides that a person who possesses real estate with intent to own it for twenty (20) years and who possesses it in peace and openly shall acquire its ownership by registering it. Article 197(1) of the Civil Act provides that the possessor shall be presumed to have occupied it in good faith, peace and public performance with intent to own it. Thus, a person who asserts the completion of the statute of limitations for acquisition by possession does not bear the burden of proving the ownership, good faith, peace and public performance, and there is no burden of proof as to the owner, good faith, good faith, and public performance, and the disputing party bears the burden of proving it.

In this case, the Defendants’ land of this case from the registration of transfer of shares to the date of closing of argument in this court.