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. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 1944, when the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Japan, the Daegu District Court Decision No. 37029, Dec. 6, 2006, No. 37029, which was received on December 6, 194, on the basis of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant’s future on the grounds of reversion of rights on September 11, 1948.

B. The Plaintiff currently occupies the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 8, 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assistance net D, a cause of the plaintiff's claim, purchased the land in this case from Japan around March 1945 and occupied the farmer's house, and the father's father Eul occupied the land in this case by inheritance on January 20, 1958, and on September 8, 1990, the plaintiff occupied the land in this case through inheritance consultation after E's death. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on March 31, 1965 on the ground of the completion of the prescription for possession.

3. Determination

A. According to the relevant legal principles and Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, an occupant of an object shall be presumed to have occupied the object with his/her intention of possession, but where it is proved that the occupant occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission, even though he/she is well aware of the absence of such legal requirements without the legal act or any other legal requirements that may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, the occupant shall be deemed not to have an intention to reject the ownership of another person and not to possess it. Thus, the presumption that the possession

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997). In addition, the possession of property devolving upon the State under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State shall be deemed as an possession of property devolving upon the nature of the source of title, and the former disposal of property devolving upon the State.