1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. As to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the land in this case) is the land for which the assessment was conducted on December 23, 1912 (large Number of Years) C (hereinafter “C”) in order to distinguish from the “C” generated after C”.

B. On March 1948, 1948, the Plaintiff’s Sheet D purchased the instant land from C (the Plaintiff asserts the same person as the person in charge of the assessment, hereinafter referred to as “seller”) which was the first seventh degree between the two parties, and the seller was unable to complete the registration of transfer of ownership due to the North Korea’s incident, but the seller continued to occupy the instant land at that time and donated it to the Plaintiff, the Republic of Korea, around 2009.

Fidelity from 2009 to 2009, the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case while paying the property tax.

x) The plaintiff has the right to claim the transfer registration for ownership based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription on May 16, 2008, as the primary reason for the sale from May 16, 1948.

However, the defendant actively denies the fact that the person under whose circumstances the seller is the same person.

(v) Accordingly, the Plaintiff claims the transfer registration of ownership against the seller as the preserved right, and seeks confirmation of ownership by subrogation of the seller to the Defendant.

B. (i) As to (i) whether the person in charge of circumstance is the same person or seller, or whether the network D purchased the instant land from the person in charge of assessment, and whether the network D and the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate for not less than twenty (20) years, it is difficult to believe that the statement of evidence No. 6, No. 7, and No. 8 corresponding thereto is the same, and the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize such facts, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, the plaintiff's right to claim the transfer of ownership is not recognized.

D.On the other hand, in the creditor subrogation lawsuit, the subrogation is made.