1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On August 17, 1999, the land of this case is the land substituted by D 1,197 square meters under the Agricultural-Based Rearrangement Project Act (hereinafter “the previous land”).

B. As to the previous land of this case, the Defendant’s father E completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 14, 1947, and the Defendant’s father F completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 17, 197 due to family inheritance. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 13, 2012, which was after replotting, due to consultation and division inheritance.

C. The previous land of this case was repaid by Nonparty G on November 10, 1964 as farmland distributed under the former Farmland Reform Act. The Plaintiff’s father purchased the previous land of this case from G on October 31, 1962, and paid the repayment rice due to G. H from October 31, 1962. Since around October 31, 1962, H left farming houses from the previous land of this case and occupied it for not less than 20 years.

H died on January 19, 2004, and his inheritors agreed on the division of inherited property on December 16, 2013 by holding the instant land solely by the Plaintiff.

E. Therefore, inasmuch as the period of extinctive prescription has expired by occupying the previous land of this case for at least 20 years, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on October 30, 1982 with respect to the land of this case to the Plaintiff on the ground of the completion of extinctive prescription.

2. Determination

A. In the case of prescriptive acquisition, the intention of possession, which is the requirement for possession frequently, must be objectively determined by the nature of the source of possessory right. However, if the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, it shall be presumed that the source of possessory right has been occupied with the intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. However, the acquisition of real estate by the juristic act, knowing that the acquisition of real estate or any juristic act