2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. On January 26, 194, land cadastre B, B, 317 square meters, was registered in the name of C on the land cadastre, and on October 17, 1995, registration of ownership preservation was completed as owned by the State (the Ministry of Finance and Economy) and the Ministry of Finance and Economy on the ground of the reverted property.

B. The Plaintiff is in fact possessing a house on the ground of 247 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) among the above B large 317 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and is in possession of the instant land.

C. On July 8, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land, which is State property, without permission, the Defendant imposed a disposition on the Plaintiff, imposing indemnity of KRW 710,870 in total from May 29, 2010 to May 28, 2015.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by prescription as it occupied the instant land in a peaceful and public manner for not less than 20 years since D, a Cityberter, constructed the instant housing on the instant land in around 1953, and thereafter, it was unlawful to make the instant disposition.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

다. 판단 1) 점유취득시효의 완성 갑 제1, 3, 7, 8, 13, 16호증의 각 기재 및 영상과 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, ① D은 1953년경 이 사건 토지 위에 이 사건 주택을 신축하여 아들인 E을 비롯한 가족들과 함께 거주하면서 이 사건 토지를 점유하여 온 사실, ② 원고는 1964. 4. 28. E과 혼인한 이후 이 사건 주택에서 시댁 식구들과 같이 거주하다가 1976. 1. 28. E이 사망하자 그때부터 단독으로 이 사건 주택을 사실상 소유하면서 이 사건 토지를 계속 점유하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있고(피고는 D과 E의 출생지 및 사망지가 이 사건 토지의 소재지와 다른 점, D이나 E, 원고가 이 사건...