1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 1991, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate on October 30, 1991.

B. However, during the period from 193 to 1994, a resident tax office, the National Pension Management Corporation, the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. was seized or provisionally seized the instant real estate, and the right to collateral security was also established with respect to the said real estate, and the public auction procedure was initiated regarding the said real estate, and the non-party D awarded the bid during the public auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the public auction on February 8, 1995.

C. On October 23, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On October 30, 1991, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate and commenced possession. On February 8, 1995, the Plaintiff occupied the said real estate as its intention to continue to own the said real estate while residing in a building with legal superficies on the ground even after the ownership was transferred to a third party through a public sale procedure.

Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the prescription of possession of the instant real estate on February 8, 2015 after the lapse of 20 years from February 8, 1995, and accordingly, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant, who is the title holder of the present real estate.

B. In a case where the owner of real estate takes a procedure without stopping the execution of the auction since the auction was commenced based on the mortgage established on the judgment real estate, and the real estate was knocked out to a third party and paid the price so that the previous owner's ownership was lost, it is reasonable to view the possession as the possession of the real estate even if the previous owner continues to possess the real estate reverted to a third party, barring any special circumstance. It is sentenced to Supreme Court Decision 196Da1538, Nov. 2