1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2...

1. The reasons why this court has used this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the part of “1. Recognizing the facts of recognition” in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case is the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”).

The Plaintiff’s ownership is the Plaintiff’s land inherited. The Defendant recovered the instant real estate No. 1, and returned the instant real estate No. 2 to the public for access. The Defendant occupied and used the Plaintiff’s real estate without any legal title, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff. (2) On September 25, 1945, the U.S. Army Headquarters’s Office of the United States Armed Forces (hereinafter “Military Administration Act”) established on September 25, 194.

) In accordance with the “Measures for Transfer of Property Rights” under subparagraph 2, Japan’s transfer of all property rights is prohibited, and at the same time the juristic act for the transfer of property rights concluded after August 9, 1945 was invalidated, and the pertinent property rights belong to the U.S. military administration pursuant to Article 33 of the Military Administration Act, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the deceased with respect to the first and second real estate before the division is invalid pursuant to subparagraphs 2 and 33 of the Military Administration Act, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the deceased with respect to the first and second real estate of this case and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff, etc. as to the first and second real estate of this case must be cancelled as the registration of invalidation. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the first and second real estate of this case is without merit) and the plaintiff, etc. renounced

C. At least 50 years from January 1, 1965, the Defendant owned the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case frequently, and the acquisition by prescription has been completed, and the Defendant owns the real estate.