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 for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. From December 17, 1974, Plaintiff B, who purchased the instant land, mispercing the boundary of the instant land as the direction existing at the present, and accordingly, occupied the part “bb” on the instant land inside the rash-ro for twenty (20) years, frequently occupied on December 18, 1994, and the prescriptive acquisition for the part “b” on the instant land was completed.

The defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on December 17, 1994 with respect to the part “B” in the instant case to B.

On July 20, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from B from July 2009, and at the time, the instant land was included in the sale subject.

B is obligated for the Plaintiff to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on July 20, 2009 with respect to the part “b” in the instant case.

The plaintiff shall exercise the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership on the ground of completion of the prescriptive acquisition by the defendant in lieu of B as the creditor.

B. As part of the instant road, the part “b” cannot be subject to the prescriptive acquisition by reason of falling under administrative property.

B was not proved to have occupied the part “B” on the instant ship, and even if the possession of B is recognized, B is aware of the actual boundary of the instant land, and is deemed to have occupied the part “B” without permission in the instant ship, and constitutes an occupancy without permission.

Ultimately, the prescriptive acquisition on “B” portion in the instant ship was not completed.

The Plaintiff and B do not include the part “bb” in the instant sales contract subject to the sales contract concluded on July 20, 2009 with respect to the instant land.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff and B are the land of this case on July 20, 2009.