The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant (Appointed Party).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The title truster asserts that the registration was made under the title trust agreement on the premise of the presumption of the registration, and that the registration was made under the title trust agreement. Thus, even if there is an presumption of the registration, the title truster may assert that the registration was made under the title trust

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da54253 delivered on March 13, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68506 delivered on February 22, 2007, etc.). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the claim for the acquisition by prescription of the Defendant (Appointed Party) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the register cannot be deemed to have been converted into independent possession, and the Plaintiff’s Defendant (Appointed Party)’s claim for the transfer of ownership registration on the ground that the ownership transfer registration for the cancellation of title trust with respect to the Plaintiff’s Defendant (Appointed Party) and the remaining designated parties was based on the following facts: (a) five persons, such as AL, etc., determined that the forest of this case was the real estate held in title trust by the Plaintiff; and (b) five persons, such as AL, etc., including the possession of the forest of this case, including AL, were the real estate held in title trust by the Plaintiff.

In light of the above legal principles and records, there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the judgment below, but the judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the resolution of the general assembly of clans, capacity of parties, presumption of registration of ownership preservation, title trust, and acquisition of the register, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.