1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The land cadastre of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 of the facts of recognition (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”) is indicated as the assessment of each of the instant lands by B on September 23, 1914. However, the address, resident registration number, etc. of B are not indicated.

Each land of this case is unregistered.

The deceased C is the owner of the land indicated in paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) adjacent to each land of this case. The plaintiff is the spouse of the above C, and the plaintiff and the deceased C have paid the aggregate land tax and property tax on each land of this case from around 1985.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. After purchasing each of the instant lands from B in around 1985, from March 22, 1985, the Network C occupied each of the instant lands with the intent to own the instant land, and the deceased on January 31, 2002, the Plaintiff, the spouse of the Plaintiff, succeeded to each of the instant lands in sequence due to inheritance by agreement and division on the same day.

Since the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant lands from March 22, 1985 to 20 years, including the possession of the net C, it is deemed that the acquisition by prescription was completed on March 22, 2005.

Therefore, B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to confirm that each of the instant lands is owned by B to the Plaintiff who subrogated to B.

3. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits, the Defendant stated each of the instant lands in B in the unregistered state or land cadastre B, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of prescription, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant is more beneficial to confirmation.