1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s Magna and Dog, his father, who was the Plaintiff, has completed the prescriptive acquisition on September 9, 197, by occupying the instant land in peace and openly with intent to own it for not less than 20 years from the Japanese colonial period, and by occupying it on September 9, 197, the prescriptive acquisition period was completed, the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the Defendant, as the owner at the time of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, is liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the instant land. As such, it is insufficient to recognize this by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Even if the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land was completed at the time of the aforementioned assertion.

Even in light of the statement No. 1 and the fact-finding results of the fact-finding conducted by the High Military of this Court, it is acknowledged that D and the Plaintiff continued to conclude a loan agreement with the Defendant for the land of this case from 2001 to 2014 on a five-year basis and possessed the land of this case while paying rent. According to the above fact-finding, it is reasonable to deem that the network D and the Plaintiff renounced the benefit of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on the land of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da62546, Apr. 13, 2007). The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit in this respect.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is groundless, and it is dismissed.