1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendants.

1. The scope of this court’s judgment: (a) the Plaintiff sought against the Defendants the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the primary sale; and (b) subsequently, sought the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of prescriptive acquisition; and (c) the judgment of the first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’

Accordingly, the Defendants appealed against the conjunctive claim that they lost among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim that the Defendants appealed.

2. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of O with respect to the land located in 1544m2 (hereinafter “N” and the lot number in the case of the land located in N”) in Haan-gun, Haan-gun, Haan-gun. On August 8, 1981, according to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (Act No. 3094), with respect to each of 1/3 shares in P, Q and R’s name as of February 3, 1971.

B. Of D, 1544 square meters, 918 square meters was divided into S on March 17, 1994 (hereinafter “142 square meters among S”), 38 square meters were divided into U on August 24, 1994, and 100 square meters were divided into V on October 12, 2010.

D currently remains 488 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. Q died on May 14, 1994.

Of the instant real estate, Q 1/3 shares were inherited to the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties as stated in the purport of the claim.

P died on May 17, 2009.

On February 19, 2010, Defendant B completed a share transfer registration based on inheritance due to the agreement and division made on May 17, 2009 with respect to one-third share of P, among the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The Plaintiff’s assertion is with respect to the surrounding land by piling up stone in the vicinity of the instant real estate from September 1, 1974 to the present date.