1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant land”) was originally indicated as Gangwon-do Human Resources B and Gangwon-do Human Resources C, and each registration conversion was made into Gangwon-do Human Resources D and Gangwon-do Human Resources E, which is indicated as of May 11, 1987.

B. On October 23, 1996, the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land.

(No. 7180, Oct. 23, 1996). (No. 7180, Oct. 23, 1996) The fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant land was owned by Nonparty F, and the Plaintiff purchased the said land from F on May 15, 1975, but did not complete registration only.

B. From the purchase of the instant land to the 1980s, the Plaintiff occupied the said land by directly cultivating the said land, and around October 1987, the Plaintiff installed and managed the graves of Non-Party G and Non-Party H by the Simb, Non-Party G and Non-Party H by the Simb in the Seoul metropolitan area in the 1980s. As the Plaintiff was a director in the Seoul metropolitan area in the 1980s, the Plaintiff cultivated the said land to the JK couple, the N

C. The instant land is in fact owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff continuously occupied the said land in a peaceful and open manner from May 15, 1975 to the present date, and the acquisition by prescription became complete.

Therefore, each registration of preservation of ownership, which the defendant completed on October 23, 1996 with respect to the land of this case, is invalid.

Furthermore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground that the statute of limitations has been completed for the Plaintiff, who occupied the instant land in a peaceful and openly and openly for twenty years ( October 23, 2016) from the time of filing for the Defendant’s registration.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s determination as to whether each of the Defendant’s respective registrations of preservation of ownership is null and void is the above land at the time the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on each of the instant land.