1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On September 11, 1969, after the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to Defendant F’s sale in the future, the basic facts of the instant land was completed on September 6, 1987 with respect to each of the shares listed in the separate sheet in the Defendants’ future on the grounds of donation on May 6, 1987.

Since May 29, 1993, 610/3270 of the shares of Defendant C, 170/3270 of the shares of Defendant C was the name of K on the ground of donation, and 3270/3270 of the shares was the name of J on the ground of donation, and each share transfer registration was completed on December 22, 1998 for each share of the above J and K was again completed on the ground of donation.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. On September 19, 1955, Plaintiff Cho Jong-tae purchased Nan (hereinafter “N land”) from M, which was identical to Nando-gu, Busan (hereinafter “Nan”) and the land of this case. Since then, Plaintiff Cho Young-gu, the Plaintiff’s father purchased the land of this case from May 16, 1964, and I begin to possess the land of this case from May 16, 1964. Since the death of April 2, 1986, he occupied the Plaintiff’s possession in peace and public performance with his intention to possess it.

On the other hand, in relation to Defendant C’s share, the prescriptive acquisition for the entire real estate of this case including Defendant C’s share was completed on May 29, 2013, since J and K continuously occupied the real estate of this case as the intention to own it in peace and openly, even after the commencement of the secondary prescription on May 29, 1993, newly acquired ownership by donation of part of Defendant C’s share.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on May 29, 2013 against the Plaintiff on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. N land claimed by the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s husband purchased and this case’s land is separate land, and thus, land of this case.