A. The Plaintiff purchased a P orchard 3,692 square meters and Q orchard 4,366 square meters from R in Jeju-si, Jeju-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 29, 1982. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 29, 1982 for Q orchard 4,366 square meters in Jeju-si. (2) On November 29, 1983, Jeju-si, the Plaintiff owned 88 square meters (291 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) prior to OO in Jeju-si, and S died on June 22, 1973, and the Defendants succeeded to S as the same share in the inheritance shares of each Defendant.

3) The instant land exists between the pertinent Jeju-si P and Q land owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff occupied and cultivated the instant land from November 29, 1983. [In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff did not have any legal relation, evidence A1 through 12 (including the land number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. The possessor of the judgment is presumed to have occupied the land in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own intent (Article 197 of the Civil Act). Thus, the prescription period for the acquisition of possession was completed on November 29, 2003 after the lapse of 20 years from November 29, 1983, since the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on November 29, 2003 with respect to each inheritance share in the separate sheet of inheritance shares by Defendant on the instant land to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

A. There is no ground to acknowledge that the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case with the intent to own the land of this case (the title of sale, donation, donation, inheritance, etc.). Thus, the Plaintiff’s possession of the land of this case is the owner possession.

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intention. Therefore, in cases where the possessor asserts the acquisition by prescription, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention. Rather, the possessor’s acquisition by prescription is established by asserting that the possessor has no intention