1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Appointeds) and the designated parties are dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (appointed party) and the defendant.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought implementation of each of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription, as the primary reason for sales, with respect to the Defendant and the designated parties.

However, the court of first instance dismissed the primary claim and accepted only the conjunctive claim.

The scope of this Court's trial is limited to the preliminary claim because only the defendant and the designated parties have appealed to the preliminary claim against which they have lost.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant’s decedent D (hereinafter “the deceased”).

on December 11, 1965, Ansan-si C, Seoul, and 645 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) After the date of acquisition of the deceased’s ownership, the Plaintiff occupies the instant land for at least 20 years from the date of closing argument in the trial.

3) The deceased died on June 7, 1979. At the time, the deceased died on his wife E and his wife as his wife, the deceased was the Defendant, F, G, H, I, and H, who was his wife, as his wife E and her wife, and his wife as son, G, H, I, and H were married at the time of the deceased’s death, and the selected I was unmarried.

5) At the time of the deceased’s death, the Defendant succeeded to the deceased’s status as the head of household. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through

B. In the event that the registrant is the same and there is no change in the acquisitor between them during the period of prescription for determining the cause of the claim, the completion of prescription is claimed against the registrant, regardless of where the starting point of the period of prescription begins, and the expiration of the period of prescription expires at the time when it is possible to claim the completion of the period. However, it is insufficient to determine the starting point of the actual possession difficult to recognize due to the lapse of the period of prescription on the ground of the lapse of the period of prescription

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 76Da487, Jun. 22, 1976). This is based on the above legal doctrine.