The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

After finding the facts as indicated in its holding, the lower court dismissed the claim of this case, seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the part of the land of this case for the completion of prescriptive acquisition, on the ground that the possession of the land of this case was changed to that of another owner after D sold the land of this case, and that the possession of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who succeeded to the possession of Chobu by inheritance should also be deemed to be the possession of the owner.

Furthermore, the lower court partly accepted the instant counterclaim claim seeking unjust enrichment equivalent to rent due to the removal of vinyl houses installed on the ground by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) based on the ownership of the instant land, the delivery of the site, and the possession and use of the part of the land.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the prescriptive acquisition or the possession of another owner.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.