1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 24, 1981 in the name of 2,628 square meters prior to Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-do (hereinafter “instant land”). However, on March 8, 1996, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant.

B. The Plaintiff, upon the death of E, set up and manage the tomb on the instant land in 1994.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On March 194, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from D in order to set up a tomb, which was the Plaintiff’s son around March 1994, and thereafter installed the instant grave on April 16, 1994 upon the death of E.

Although the Plaintiff intended to complete the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant land, the Plaintiff could not do so due to the circumstance that occurred on the day when he promised to do so in D and Ycheon, and the Plaintiff was temporarily registered under the name of the Defendant according to the proposal of the Defendant mother’s father.

Since the Plaintiff occupied the instant land in peace and public performance with the intent to own it for at least 20 years from the time of installing a tomb, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on April 16, 2014 on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations for possession.

B. Although there is a tombe E in part of the land of this case, the remainder is cultivated and occupied by the defendant.

Therefore, the argument on the acquisition by prescription under the premise that the Plaintiff occupied the entire land of this case is without merit.

3. The fact that the Plaintiff installed a tombe E, a part of the land of this case, around 1994, can be acknowledged by either the parties or the statements or images set forth in the evidence Nos. 3, 4-1, 2, and 6-1, 6-2.

However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff occupied the entire land of this case directly or indirectly for 20 years only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 5 and 7.