1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 24, 191, the land substitution plan was publicly announced on the implementation of the land rearrangement project in the Dong-dong, Yongsan-gu (hereinafter “Ddong”) in Manyang-si (hereinafter “Ddong”).

F. The Plaintiff, who was registered in the name of E as a result of the above replotting disposition, was replaced with 4,170 square meters (hereinafter “pre-division land”), the F-Y 237 square meters, G 439 square meters, H 1,095 square meters (hereinafter “the above three parcels”). The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the pre-division land on December 1, 1993.

B. On December 8, 2001, the land before subdivision was divided into one 4,079 square meters and J 91 square meters, and the said 1 4,079 square meters and the land before subdivision was divided into one 99 square meters and the instant land on March 29, 201.

C. On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, the heir, claiming that 300 square meters of the land before replotting was entrusted to E, and sought implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the cancellation of title trust with respect to the portion of the disputing land. However, on May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment against the Defendant on May 26, 2016 (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Ga7483, hereinafter “Prior Action Litigation”), and on March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.

4. 8. The above judgment became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 11-1-2 and 2, the fact-finding results on the senior branch of the Korea Rural Community Corporation in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he owned 300 square meters from 1961 to 300 square meters from the land before replotting, and after June 25, 1991, the Plaintiff occupied the portion of the land in dispute among the land before subdivision by letting ice grow, and possessed it until March 2009.

On September 30, 1989, before the commencement date of the land rearrangement project concerning the land before replotting, or on June 24, 201, when the acquisition by prescription for the Plaintiff’s possession of the land in dispute was completed on September 24, 2011, when 20 years have elapsed from the land substitution date. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer following the completion of the prescription for possession

3. The judgment No. 11-1 is written.