A. H land was originally owned by Chungcheongnam-si, and on December 18, 1941, the ownership was transferred to J, the inheritee’s decedent, and thereafter, on June 20, 197, the land was divided into F 1,934 square meters (hereinafter “instant F land”), K 2,03 square meters, G 2,648 square meters (hereinafter “instant G land”), L 2,357 square meters.

B. The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the above lands on June 20, 1977 due to the inheritance on October 5, 1973 by Defendant C and E, and Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the above lands.

C. As of the date of the closing of the argument in this case, the land of this case F is possessed by the Plaintiff A, and the G land of this case by the Plaintiff B, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 4, 9, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. The summary of the party's assertion 1) Plaintiff A purchased the pertinent land from I's grandchildren known as the owner of the instant F land on November 15, 1959, and acquired by prescription after he/she occupied the said land with the intention of ownership for at least 20 years from January 1, 1960 to 20 years. Accordingly, Plaintiff A filed for the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendants, the owner of the said land. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that Plaintiff A purchased the instant F land on November 15, 1959, and it is difficult to view that Plaintiff A was a seller's purchase with the well-known knowledge that the M is not the owner of the said land, and it cannot be deemed as an autonomous possession, and the Defendants cannot accept the Plaintiff's request.

B. The possessor of the relevant legal doctrine (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Da37661, Mar. 16, 2000) is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intention of ownership (see, e.g., Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). The possessor is presumed to have continued possession if he/she had occupied at the time of post and post and post cultivation (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Da37661, Mar. 16, 200).