1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. 사실관계 [인정근거] 갑 1, 14호증, 을가 1∽3호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지 망 H은 시흥시 I 임야 199평(이하, ‘이 사건 토지’)를 사정받았고, 그의 장남 J(1938. 9. 29. 사망), 장손 K(1987. 5. 29. 사망)이 차례로 호주상속하였으며, 피고 B, C, D, E, F, G은 K의 상속인들이다.

In the process of including L, which was divided into the instant land, into an urban planning facility project (M sports facility development project), and acquiring the ownership of the instant land, Defendant Si-si: (a) deposited KRW 112,890,000 for land expropriation compensation decided by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee (Seoul District Court Decision 4302, Dec. 14, 2015; and (b) completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the instant L, which was unregistered until December 17, 2015 by December 17, 2015.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s father N(O) and the Plaintiff’s mother P were occupied and used after purchasing the instant L, around 1935, and the Plaintiff continued to occupy the instant land in the same form since November 22, 1995. As such, N or the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land was completed on June 1, 195 to November 23, 2015 after the lapse of 20 years from May 31, 1935 or November 22, 1995.

H or his heir is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription as above to the Plaintiff, and it became impossible to register ownership transfer due to the expropriation of the instant L land.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, who is the right holder for ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the prescriptive acquisition for H or his/her heir, can seek implementation of the procedure for notification of transfer of deposit payment claim against H’s heir, who is the person responsible for registration, as the exercise of the right to claim for ownership transfer registration.

B. the board is under the Civil Act.