1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff purchased the land of this case from C around April 20, 1970 and occupied and used the farmland as the site of the building since around April 20, 1974. Thus, the acquisition by prescription was completed around April 20, 1994.

Therefore, the Defendant primarily claims the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership preservation stated in the purport of the claim made on the instant land, and the conjunctive claim for the implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on April 20, 1994.

1) The Defendant’s registration of ownership preservation on the instant land is null and void, since the land of this case, which was the land prior to the partitioning of the instant claim, was found to have been subject to the assessment by East Asia-si corporation. However, as it existed at the time of Japanese colonial rule, the East Asia-si corporation, one of the circumstances, was in fact impossible to acquire ownership by means of the ownership transfer registration on the ground of the acquisition of ownership transfer registration on the ground of the fact that the Plaintiff claiming the completion of the acquisition by prescription, since it was no longer found. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to file a claim for cancellation of the ownership preservation registration on the instant land. (ii) The Defendant is not the real owner of the instant land at the time of the completion of the acquisition by prescription, but is the title holder

B. Defendant 1) The Plaintiff on the main defense of this case was unable to have an entity as a non-corporate group, such as not knowing the inherent business as a natural village and not confirming the scope of its members. In addition, the instant lawsuit is not lawful as it was brought without the resolution of the Maur General Assembly. 2) The Plaintiff did not purchase the instant land from C, and without a legitimate source of possession right.