1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 11, 1993, N sold to the Plaintiff P field 2,369 square meters, Q field 779 square meters (hereinafter “the separate land in this case”) P field 2,369 square meters, which were located in the name of father at the time of the Plaintiff on May 11, 1993, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the above lands on October 4, 1996 due to inheritance by consultation division under its own name, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on January 24, 1997.

(However, the reason for registration was the sale of December 27, 1996.(B).

The land of this case, which is linked to the land of the above P and Q, is still registered in the name of O.

C.O died on October 20, 1989 and succeeded jointly as N and Defendant (Appointed Party)’s final inheritance shares for the same reason as the No. 1, J, K, K, and L’s final inheritance shares for the reasons indicated in the separate sheet of inheritance calculation in the separate sheet, as N and the Defendant (Appointed Party) died on September 9, 2003.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4-1, 5-1, 5-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from N on May 15, 1993, the Plaintiff continuously occupied the instant land for more than 20 years and managed the instant land by planting lost trees. As such, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the completion of prescription against the Defendants jointly inherited the instant land fromO.

B. The Defendant (Appointed Party) did not sell N to the Plaintiff the land left without selling to another person for the installation of a tombstone. As such, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land is nothing more than the possession of a third party’s bad faith (or bad faith without permission).

3. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an article shall be presumed to have occupied the article as his/her own intention, but the possessor shall exclude the ownership of another person.