1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 3,858 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the Do, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and 1,17 square meters (hereinafter “instant land 2”); Fluor 274 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”; hereinafter “instant 3 land”; hereinafter “instant land”) of the 274 square meters in total, of the instant land Nos. 1,2, and 3, in Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The deceased on May 23, 1996, the heir (H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, Defendant B) of the network G including the Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 8, 2010 for each of the instant land by inheritance shares (1/9), and the Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 20, 2012 for the entire shares (8/9) of the other co-owners except the Defendant B’s shares out of each of the instant land on July 31, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In return for the Plaintiff’s repayment of the Plaintiff’s father P, a partner of the network G around 1960 on behalf of his/her own debt, the network G connects the Plaintiff P with each point of (a) part of 47m2 and each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 1 in sequence, as indicated in the annexed sheet No. 1, 1960 (hereinafter “instant dispute land”).

2) The Plaintiff, from around 1973, occupied and managed the land in question with the intent to own the land in question. The Plaintiff occupied and managed the land in question with Qu et al. by means of leasing the land in question to Qu et al. and receiving a rent.

3. The Plaintiff, even from May 23, 1996, occupied the land in the instant case with the intent to own the land in a peaceful and public performance manner, and the acquisition by prescription on May 23, 2016 passed since the lapse of 20 years, was completed, and thus, the Defendants did not object to the Plaintiff.