1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1,236 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) is the land on which a grave for the name and the influence of the decedent was installed in the register of the register of the land, and the owner of the land was registered in the name of the Defendant. While the Defendant was missing, E, the father of the Plaintiff, who is the most neighboring father of the Plaintiff, has been in the management of the instant grave, was in the possession of the said grave. In addition, the Plaintiff used the said grave once around 1998 and had been in the exclusive possession of the said grave. The Plaintiff continued to possess the land of this case after the lapse of 20 years from June 20, 1955, or after the expiration of 2018, after the expiration of 2018, the ownership of the instant grave was verified by the Plaintiff.

2. Relevant legal principles

(a) Where the acquisition by prescription is completed, the possessor of the real estate at the time the prescription expires due to the effect of the acquisition by possession shall claim the registration of ownership transfer against the owner at the time the prescription expires, unless there are other special circumstances. Even if the possessor is the owner on the register or co-owner, he/she may not claim the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the prescription

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da71858, Dec. 24, 2009). B.

If the land is unregistered, the previous land cadastre is destroyed and lost, and there is no evidence to confirm the owner, and if the person entered in the name of the owner on the restored land cadastre is aware of what circumstances the owner entered in the name of the owner at the time of the restoration of the land cadastre, the entry in the above restored land cadastre can be inferred that the competent tax official voluntarily prepared as reference material.