1. The Defendant completed the prescriptive acquisition on June 30, 2015 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share in 11/22 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Basic Facts

D, the husband of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant are children of the deceased C (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

There are children of the Plaintiff and D, E, F, G, and H.

Attached Form

On March 15, 1993, the registration of ownership transfer was made on July 8, 1995 on the real estate listed in the list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

The Deceased died on April 27, 1996, and D died on January 23, 1998.

With respect to the portion 11/22 of the instant real estate, the Defendant’s 3/22 shares were transferred to the Plaintiff on April 27, 1996 with respect to each of the said shares by E, F, G, and H on April 27, 1996, with respect to each of the said shares by the Seoul District Court No. 1332 on October 11, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 20, 29, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and summary of the plaintiff's assertion in the purport of the whole pleadings, the real estate in this case was actually purchased by the plaintiff and entrusted only its title to the deceased. Thus, the registration of transfer of ownership made in the defendant's future (hereinafter "registration of defendant's share") due to inheritance as to the 11/22 share of the real estate in this case, other than the inherited property of the deceased, should be cancelled since the registration of

In addition, even if the registration of the Defendant’s share cannot be cancelled, since the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate in peace and openly with the intent to own it from June 30, 1995, the acquisition by prescription for 20 years has been completed. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on June 30, 2015 with respect to the share of 11/22 out of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration of the defendant's share, which the plaintiff sought as to the claim for cancellation registration, is premised on the fact that the plaintiff actually purchased the real estate of this case and entrusted only the name to the deceased. Thus, it is difficult to believe that the statement of Gap evidence No. 12, which seems consistent with this, is difficult, and it is also difficult to believe that Gap evidence No. 1 through