2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On November 27, 1969, F completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on October 27, 1967 with respect to the E large 370 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) with respect to Defendant B’s permanent residence on a permanent basis.

B. On September 19, 190, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 1/4 to Defendant C, and with respect to shares of 1/4 to Defendant D and G, on the ground of donation on September 19, 1990.

C. Thereafter, on December 10, 1999, G completed the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant C on the ground of public sale on October 14 of the same year with respect to one-fourths of one-fourths of the instant land.

On the other hand, among the land in this case, there is a building on the part (i) of 165 square meters connected in order to each point of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 5 of the attached drawings among the land in this case.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers if a branch number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the court's request for surveying and appraisal to the permanent branch office of Korea Cadastral Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since H, the Plaintiff’s father, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, purchased the instant land and the building on its ground from I on October 20, 1969 in KRW 23,500, it occupied the instant land and the building on its ground in a peaceful and public performance for twenty (20) years as its owner’s intent. As such, the Defendants, the owner of the instant land, are liable to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the instant land to the Plaintiff who succeeded to the status of H that completed the prescriptive prescription

B. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion was that the Plaintiff or H did not have occupied the instant land for 20 years in peace and public performance with the intent to own the instant land. Even if the Plaintiff or H occupied the instant land for 20 years, the said possession was occupied with bad faith, and thus, the presumption of possession with intention was broken.

3. If the nature of possessory right over the article on board is not clear, the possessor shall own it under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act.