1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s reasoning on this part is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the rejection of testimony by Gap and witness G of the court of first instance, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff’s assertion, since it is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, even though it was impossible for the Plaintiff to cultivate part of the instant real estate because it was a reservoir, embankment, or legal surface, the Plaintiff’s spouse, as to the instant farmland except the remaining farmland, was occupied and used as the result of the Plaintiff’s purchase from the Defendant Cooperative around 1967, and thereafter possessed and used the instant farmland for a period of 20 years since it was occupied and cultivated by the Plaintiff. As such, the prescriptive prescription as to the said farmland was completed on January 1, 1988 after the lapse of 20 years.

Therefore, the defendant farming association is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on January 1, 198 with respect to the above farmland to the plaintiff.

B. We examine the specific determination, as seen earlier, that the Plaintiff did not recognize that the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate, including the instant farmland, for a period of 20 years with the intention to own it.

Even if the Plaintiff occupied the farmland of this case for a period of 20 years, the presumption of intention to own the farmland of this case under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act shall be deemed to have no intention to own the farmland in light of the nature of the possession, or to have no intention to own it under the rule of experience. In other words, it shall be deemed to have been proven that the possessor obtained possession based on the source of authority or did not have an intention to own it in accordance with the rule of experience. In other words, it shall be objectively deemed that the possessor did not normally take any action if the possessor did not act while in possession or did not act as the owner.