1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant on January 2, 2010, as to the Plaintiff’s 2,165 square meters prior to Incheon Cheongjin-gun, Incheon.

1. According to the evidence No. 7-2 of the basic facts, the registration of preservation of ownership, such as the description of the purport of the claim, in the name of the Defendant on June 5, 1995, can be acknowledged as to the land of 2,165 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

2. Upon examining the Plaintiff’s main claim, C and eight other parties, the fleet of the Plaintiff, were assessed against D land, which is the land prior to the partition of B, 2,165 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). C borrowed money from the Plaintiff’s fleet and transferred the ownership of the instant land in lieu of the Plaintiff’s failure to repay the money. On June 5, 1995, the Defendant without permission, filed a registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land, and thus, the registration of invalidation should be cancelled as the registration of invalidation. However, since there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’s main claim is without merit.

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. From 1960 to 1960, the Plaintiff, as the cause of the claim, has occupied and managed the instant land in a peaceful and openly manner with the intent to own the farmland in this case. If 20 years have elapsed, the time of voluntary starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting from January 1, 1990, the Plaintiff’s starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting acquiring the prescriptive acquisition, and thus, the prescriptive acquisition by possession was completed on January 1, 2010, and thus, the Plaintiff’s starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting starting from January 1,

B. According to the evidence No. 15, the land of this case, which was submitted as a photograph taken on the background of the land of this case around 1960, is possible at the time to dry field farming. It appears that the Plaintiff cultivated saguma, potato, bean, etc. from the land of this case around that time. 2) The land where the registration of preservation of ownership was completed under the name of the Plaintiff and its attached E, among the land located around the land of this case, is identical to the land indicated in the attached Form “land owned by the Plaintiff, etc.”.