2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. G on July 6, 1965, G completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on March 20, 1965 with respect to H orchard 4978 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

Of the instant land, Plaintiff C, B, and I completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 3, 2014 with respect to their respective share 1326/4978; Plaintiff D, with respect to their share 100/100 on July 21, 2014, respectively; and Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 16, 2015 with respect to their share 1326/49 on March 20, 2015.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the land of which J on August 10, 1913 was determined on August 10, 1913, the F cemetery site was 73 square meters (hereinafter “instant cemetery”).

However, on the cadastral boundary, the graveyard of this case is surrounded by all sides of the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Jeju market of this court, fact-finding results against the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion G continuously occupied the instant cemetery, which form part of the instant land without sealing, by purchasing the instant land and acquiring its ownership. The Plaintiffs continued to possess the instant cemetery. As of June 26, 2018, the prescriptive acquisition for the instant cemetery was completed by possessing it with the intent to own it for twenty (20) years retroactively from June 26, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant, who solely succeeded to the instant cemetery from the J upon the assessment of the instant cemetery, is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on June 26, 2018 with respect to the instant cemetery on the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition.

B. In light of the fact that the Plaintiffs failed to specifically assert and prove the occupancy mode of the graveyard of this case, the circumstance that the graveyard of this case is surrounded by the land of this case or the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to view that the graveyard of this case is surrounded by the land of this case.