A. 1) The Plaintiff is the Sejong Special Self-Governing City C with the size of 486 square meters prior to Sejong Special Self-Governing City (hereinafter “1 land”).

(1) The Defendant is the owner of the land, and the Defendant is the owner of the land adjacent to the land of 198 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “2 land”).

The owner is the first owner. On August 5, 1981, the date of receipt of the second land, the cause of registration for the owner of the land, the date of receipt of the second land, the preservation registration E on August 10, 1974, the sale F on October 10, 1974, and the transfer of the ownership of the second land on May 20, 2014 (Defendant 2 of auction on December 10, 2014) No. 1, and the transfer of the ownership of the second land are as follows:

3) The Defendant occupies part (i) of the part on the ship, which connects each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 among the land owned by the Plaintiff, in sequence, of the land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “(i)”).

[The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of the determination, the defendant is obligated to hand over the part of subparagraph (a) to the owner.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On the ground of the Defendant’s assertion 1), there is a building on the second land. From August 10, 1974, F, the former owner of the second land, purchased the second land, occupied the (i) part as the house site and boundary of the instant building, and occupied it in a peaceful and openly and openly with the intention of possession, G succeeded to the possession of G, and the Defendant succeeded to the possession of G. Since the acquisition by prescription on the (i) part has been completed, the Plaintiff cannot seek the transfer of the said land to the Defendant. (ii) Although the Plaintiff was included in the grounds for registration as a donation of the first land, it was actually inherited from E, the father, who is the father.

The plaintiff does not constitute a new interested person after the completion of prescriptive acquisition.

3) E, which was the former owner of land No. 1, knew of the fact that voluntary auction for land No. 2 was imminent and (the fact that the prescriptive acquisition for part (i) has been completed.

E is limited to the completion of acquisition by a person who acquires the second land through auction.