1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts and

2. The reasoning for the judgment of this court on the Defendant’s main defense is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the Plaintiff’s clan (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s clan”) of 2, 13, 2, and 3, as stated in each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article

3. The parties' assertion

A. Since R and U.V, the representative of the Plaintiff clan, U.S. et al., owned each of the lands of this case from the end of October 1972 to the peace and public performance with their intention to own each of the lands of this case, the Plaintiff clan acquired each of the lands of this case by prescription around October 31, 1992, the Plaintiff had the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer for the completion of the prescription period against the C clan, the title holder of each of the lands of this case at that time (hereinafter “C clan”).

After that, although the registration of change of the indication of the registered titleholder on March 20, 202 in the name of the defendant clan was made in the name of the defendant clan, the above registration is null and void. Thus, in order to preserve the right to claim the above registration of change of ownership, the plaintiff seeks to cancel the above registration of change against the defendant in subrogation of the defendant in subrogation of the defendant in order to preserve the right to claim the above registration of change of ownership. Preliminaryly, the plaintiff seeks implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the completion of prescription against the defendant

B. Even if R and its siblings, who are the representative of the Plaintiff clan, occupy each of the instant lands for not less than 20 years, such possession is merely an possession by delegation of the management of each of the instant lands to the Defendant clans.

4. Determination

A. According to the relevant legal doctrine and Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intent, and thus, the possessor is liable to prove his/her own intention in cases where he/she