1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. As to each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “each land of this case”), Nonparty M owned 328/552 shares, and Nonparty N owned 224/52 shares, respectively.

B. On February 21, 1954, Nonparty Q purchased the ownership shares of M in each of the instant lands and completed the registration of transfer. Nonparty Q purchased N’s shares in each of the instant lands on or around June 8, 1966, and registered the transfer in the name of Nonparty S after purchasing N’s shares in each of the instant lands.

C. On September 23, 1993, the Plaintiff purchased S’s shares in possession and completed the registration of transfer. From that time, the Plaintiff occupied the entire land of this case by cultivating it as a po field, etc.

Meanwhile, Q died and the Defendants inherited each of the instant land according to the statutory inheritance portion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, and 8 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was around June 3, 1966, Q purchased 328/552 shares in each of the instant land from Q, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the buyer’s status. As such, the Defendants, the inheritor of Q, are obliged to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration regarding the respective inheritance shares in Q, among each of the instant land.

B. The testimony by the witness of the first instance court, which corresponds to the fact that R purchased shares in Q from Q in each of the instant land from Q, is difficult to believe, and it is insufficient to recognize only the written statements in the evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 11, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on this premise is without merit to examine further.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that each of the instant lands was registered as co-ownership, but M and N are owned and occupied by dividing M and M into the upper part and lower part of M & N bank boundary, and each of the instant lands thereafter.