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

3. Paragraph 1-A of the judgment of the first instance.

A. On January 7, 1974, Defendant Republic of Korea filed a registration of preservation of ownership with respect to the land owned by the Defendant with a size of 14 square meters in the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. Each of the lands with H 121 square meters and J 48 square meters, adjacent to the land owned by the Defendant, was originally divided into H 169 square meters. On November 21, 1985, H 121 square meters and J 48 square meters.

(1) The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s ownership registration was

C. On November 3, 1976, the Plaintiff’s I classified the external area and boundary by piling up fences on the ground, including the land owned by the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 24, 2005 with respect to the above housing under the Plaintiff’s name on the ground of donation.

Of the land owned by the Defendant, part 13 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the attached Form 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) among the land owned by the Defendant is located in the form of a marina for the said house.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since November 3, 1976, I determined the cause of the claim is presumed to have occupied the instant land in a peaceful and performing manner with the intent to own it pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Since it is presumed that the Plaintiff succeeded to possession by I is presumed to have occupied the Plaintiff’s independent possession, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by prescription on June 30, 201 after the lapse of 20 years from June 30, 1994, which is the starting point of the possession of the Plaintiff’s own choice.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the instant land to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.