1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, and K, each of 82.5/20,790 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L 1,155 square meters.

1. The plaintiff asserts that the judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim is as shown in the annexed Form "the ground of claim".

The plaintiff's assertion can be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to defendant B, and the remaining defendants shall be considered to have led to confession under Article 150 (1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff, except in special circumstances.

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s defense

A. The Plaintiff cannot claim the prescriptive acquisition against Defendant B, who newly acquired shares in the instant land after the completion of the Plaintiff’s prescriptive acquisition period.

B. The person liable for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescription period for acquisition by possession is the owner at the time of the completion of the prescription period, and even if the person acquired the real estate from the owner and completed the registration of ownership transfer upon knowing the completion of the prescription period, barring special circumstances such as implied or explicit agreement to acquire the ownership transfer obligation between the owner and implement the registration of ownership transfer, it cannot be deemed

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da5066, 50673 Decided April 12, 1994, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) return to the instant case; (b) return to the instant case; (c) evidence No. 1; and (d) entry of evidence No. 1; and (c) the overall purport of the pleadings, as to the share of 82.5/1,155 out of the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant B, which was the cause of registration between M and the Defendant B, was completed on August 5, 201; and (d) the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership, after the completion of the prescription period for the Plaintiff’s possession

Therefore, the Plaintiff occupied 82.5/20,790 shares of the instant land owned by M for 20 years and the prescriptive acquisition was completed on May 29, 2011.

Even if the defendant B acquired ownership thereafter.