2. The Defendants are not less than 658 square meters prior to the Plaintiff Hongcheon-gun D.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the statement on "1. Basic Facts" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff's assertion by the parties concerned has been used as a passage through the land of this case for the convenience of F land for more than 20 years from March 29, 1989, and it has been expressed. Therefore, the traffic area was acquired by prescription.

In order to acquire the defendants' alleged easement, the dominant land must be exclusively occupied. The plaintiff does not have exclusive possession of the part of the land of this case, and the possession of the defendants is maintained.

The use of the dominant land is continued and expressed in order to acquire the servitude by prescription. However, the plaintiff is not only opening or expanding P, but it has been used intermittently.

Inasmuch as the provision of Article 245 of the Civil Act on the prescriptive acquisition shall apply mutatis mutandis only to cases where the owner of the dominant land continues to use another person’s land as a right to use another person’s land for the benefit of his/her own land for a certain purpose and where the owner of the dominant land continues to use the dominant estate for the benefit of the dominant estate and continues to use it for the benefit of the dominant estate, the prescriptive acquisition may be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da8493, Apr. 13, 2001). Unlike the prescriptive acquisition of ownership, it is sufficient if it is the objective situation where the owner of the dominant land continues to use it for the benefit of the dominant estate and it is not necessary to do so for the exclusive possession.

I would like to say.

In addition, when calculating the period of prescription, if the owner of the relevant real estate changes during the period of possession, the person who asserts the period of prescription may claim the completion of prescription on the ground that he/she arbitrarily selects the starting point of counting or occupies it for at least 20 years retroactively.