1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. From June 30, 1993, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was in peace and public performance possession of part (A) of 4645 square meters in sequence with each point of 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 40, 39, 38, and 21 square meters in annexed drawings among the 1670 square meters in C forest and 1670 square meters in racing-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by prescription on July 1, 2013 after the lapse of 20 years from June 30, 1993, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on July 1, 2013 with respect to the instant land.

2. Even if the period of prescription for the possession and acquisition of the judged real estate has expired, the possessor shall not oppose the third party when the transfer registration of ownership has been completed with respect to such real estate to the third party without making a registration.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45402 delivered on July 10, 1998. In a case where there is a change in the owner of the relevant real estate during the period of possession, the claimant for the prescriptive acquisition cannot assert the completion of prescription on the ground that he/she arbitrarily selected the starting point of counting or occupied for not less than 20 years retroactively, and in such a case, the court recognizes the starting point of real possession as recognized by the litigation data without recourse to the allegations of the parties, and determines the propriety of the claim for prescriptive acquisition based on the basis of the foregoing.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da39987 delivered on May 23, 1995). However, in full view of the description of No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land from around 1963 to the date, and the Defendant can recognize the fact that he completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 4, 2013 with respect to the land of which the Plaintiff occupied the instant land from around 1963.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s land, including the instant land, after the completion of the prescription for possession of the instant land.