1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary plaintiff, from December 30, 1969, occupied the land of this case in peace and openly with the intention to own it, and the acquisition by prescription was completed on December 30, 1989.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is the nominal owner on the registry of the instant land, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the instant land due to the completion of prescription for acquisition by possession.

B. Preliminary assertion 1) The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from D on December 26, 1969, and entered into a title trust agreement with only the name as the Defendant with respect to the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on December 30, 1969. (2) However, the above title trust agreement is null and void as a so-called intermediate omission registration under a title trust in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Thus, the above title trust agreement is null and void, and the ownership of the instant land is still D, a seller.

3. Therefore, the Plaintiff is a creditor who has a right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale of D on December 26, 1969 against D, and the Plaintiff seeks implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership as above, which is null and void of the cause, in subrogation of D, the seller.

2. As to the primary argument

A. Regarding the facts of the Plaintiff’s land possession, the witness F and G testimony as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion are ambiguous, and there is no objective data supporting the contents of the testimony, and in light of the relationship between the witness and the original defendant, it is difficult to believe that they are doubtfully reliable in light of the relationship between the witness and the original defendant. Similar to the above witness’s evidence Nos. 22(written testimony), A No. 27-1(written confirmation), A No. 30(written testimony), and A’s evidence No. 31(written statement) prepared by the said witness are also difficult to believe.

In addition, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 19-2, Gap evidence 23, Gap evidence 24-1, 2, Gap evidence 25, and Gap.