1. The plaintiff's appeal against the main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial.

1. The court's explanation of the plaintiff's primary claim is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of the first instance, and thus, accepts it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff sold the land in the dispute of this case excluding the sale subject to the sale, in light of the statement of evidence No. 5 (Fact confirmation), but the above confirmation date is relatively clear and clear, and it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s seal imprint was written in 1994 because the letter of confirmation was written on December 29, 194, while the letter of confirmation was written on December 29, 1994 (see the second oral argument report of this case, e.g., evidence No. 1994). Rather, in full view of the purport of the whole argument in the above evidence, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the entire land before the division due to sale on May 23, 1983 and E, and it can only be recognized that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the whole land before the division on May 21, 1983).2.1

A. On May 21, 1983, the Plaintiff asserted that the part of the land before the division of this case, except the land of this case, was sold to D and E, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff sold the land of this case to D and E in peace and openly occupied and managed the land of this case while putting a stude for the graves installed in the land of this case. The Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of possession by the Defendant on May 21, 2003 with respect to the land of this case.

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, since the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied it with his/her intention of possession, the possessor bears the burden of proving the other party who asserts that the possessor is the possession without his/her intention of possession, and the presumption of possession with intention of possession with intention of possession is reversed solely on the ground that it is not recognized where the possessor voluntarily claims the title of possession such as sale.