1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff is among one-third shares of 92 square meters in Seosan-si M.

1. According to Articles 11, 12(1) and 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, which judged the primary claim, a title truster, who had any real right to real estate registered under a title trust agreement prior to the enforcement of the said Act under the name of the title trustee, shall make the actual name registration, etc. within the grace period prescribed in Article 11 of the said Act; and since the title truster’s title trust agreement and any change in the real right to real estate made pursuant to the said registration becomes invalid after the expiration of the grace period, the title truster

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5140 Decided June 14, 2007). Unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if a title trust agreement was made with respect to one-third portion of the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s decedent N on August 20, 1980, the said title trust agreement was null and void upon the lapse of the grace period prescribed under the said Act. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim against the Defendants, the heir of the network N, for the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of the title trust agreement.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's primary claim.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. On August 20, 1980, the deceased on November 28, 2008, and the deceased on November 28, 2008, Defendant B (Inheritance Shares 3/23), Defendant C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L (Inheritance Shares 2/23) succeeded to the deceased’s property.

(2) On the other hand, around August 20, 1980, the Plaintiff constructed a village warehouse on the land of this case and occupied the land of this case in a peaceful and public performance manner for at least 20 years as the intent to own the land of this case.

(3) Therefore, the Defendants’ share of the net N 1/3 of the instant land was based on the completion of the statute of limitations for possession on August 20, 200, according to the Defendants’ inheritance shares.