1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the remainder, excluding the claim for cancellation of the establishment registration of a mortgage, is as follows.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the part on the boundary of the instant land in Section 4 and Section 9 of the first instance judgment, except that the part on the boundary of the instant land is filled up as “to stack up a part of the instant land” is as indicated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment; (b) thereby, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserted that the access road of this case was occupied by E from May 2, 1974 to May 2, 1994, the part on the access road of this case including the entire land of this case was acquired by prescription.

However, although H completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case to Defendant B after the completion of the prescription period for acquiring the Plaintiff’s possession, it is invalid because it is an act contrary to false agreement or social order.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of the instant land on behalf of H’s heir, remove the ground buildings, and deliver the relevant part of the land to the Plaintiff.

In addition, the Defendants, the inheritors of H, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer according to their respective inheritance shares in the land of this case.

B. The reasons why the court stated this part of the facts of recognition are stated in the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance from the 7th to the 9th 11th .

B. Since the facts of recognition are the same as the part of the facts of recognition, it shall be quoted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. C. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) According to the facts as seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired the access road of this case by prescription from May 2, 1974, which began to occupy the access road of this case from May 2, 1974 to May 2, 1994, where 20 years elapsed, barring special circumstances.

2) H’s validity of the registration of transfer of ownership completed under Defendant B’s name is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s part of the instant land included in the access road of this case (the ground not deemed as the entire land).