1. The plaintiff's successor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

purport.

1. The reasons why this court shall state this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination on the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion by the succeeding intervenor was that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land from around 1981, and the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land was completed around January 1, 2002, and thereafter, the Plaintiff transferred the right to claim ownership transfer registration to the Plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

Therefore, the heir of J is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land of this case to the Plaintiff’s successor based on the prescription period for possession.

B. Possession of the judgment object refers to the objective relationship that appears to be in a person's factual control under the social concept, and thus, in order to have a de facto control, it does not necessarily mean that the object is physically controlled, but should be determined in accordance with the social concept by taking into account the time and spatial relationship with the object, the relationship between the object and the person, the possibility of excluding others' control, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da202622 Decided May 29, 2014). However, according to the evidence No. 3, the fact that the Plaintiff paid the property tax imposed on the instant land by 2015 is recognized, but the Plaintiff managed the instant land.

Unless there is evidence to prove that the Plaintiff actually occupied or occupied the land of this case, solely based on the above facts, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff actually occupied and occupied the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land cannot be accepted without further review.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's successor is justified.