1. Of the 1,755 square meters of paddy field D 1,755 square meters in order to connect each point of the attached Form 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (a).

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and all pleadings as to the claim against defendant C, since November 5, 1972, the defendant can recognize the fact that he occupied a part of the land indicated in the order from November 5, 1972 to the date, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on November 5, 1992 on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition.

2. Where a third party has completed the registration of ownership transfer after the decision on the claim against Defendant B was completed and the possessor had completed the registration of ownership transfer, the possessor cannot assert the acquisition by prescription against the third party. However, this is based on the premise that the registration under the third party's name is lawful. Thus, the real estate owner's obligation to register ownership transfer based on the completion of the acquisition by disposing of the real estate to a third party and transferring the registration of ownership transfer to the third party, and thereby causes damage to the claimant for the acquisition by prescription, shall constitute a tort. If the third party who acquired the real estate actively participated in such illegal act by the real estate owner, it shall be deemed null and void as contrary to social order.

(2) The plaintiff et al. who actually controlled or owned each land of this case and the land of this case was cultivated by the plaintiff et al. for about 40 years under the above agreement, as shown in the attached Form 2, according to the evidence No. 2 of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da52416, Jun. 30, 1995; 2001Da77352, 77369, Mar. 15, 2002). According to the evidence No. 2 of this case, as a pilot project of the Saemaul Movement around 1972, the Gyeong, the plaintiff, and G, who actually controlled or owned each land of this case and the land of this case, have agreed to cultivate each land for about 40 years as well as about the boundary of each land. The defendant B occupied and cultivated each land of this case from around 1970.