A. The land, the area of which was 2,096 square meters prior to Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “Seoul-gun”) was increased to 2,096 square meters from 1,769 square meters and 2,096 square meters; hereinafter “the instant land”) is the land under the circumstances of E around May 10, 1914.

B. From August 26, 1983, the owner on the land of this case was changed from E to the defendant in a state of non-registration, and the defendant made registration of preservation of ownership around February 20, 1984 pursuant to Act No. 3562.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) E, the original owner of the land of this case, is the portion of 864 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 among the land of this case, in sequence, among the land of this case.

[] A gift made to F, A, and F sold it to G, the Plaintiff’s husband, around 1973. G: (a) around October 21, 1983, before death, G donated the portion of (i) part of the instant land to the Plaintiff, a spouse, around January 1, 1980; (b) from that time, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land in peace and openly and openly as the intention to own the instant land, and the prescriptive acquisition was completed. (c) The Defendant Plaintiff did not occupy the portion of (i) on board.

In addition, there is no evidence that G, the husband of the Plaintiff, purchased the portion on board around 1973, which constitutes an illegal occupation in bad faith, and acquisition by prescription is not established.

B. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4 and 5-1 and 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff continued to occupy the part (i) of the instant land from January 1, 1980, which was before G’s death.

Although the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's possession is a bad faith illegal possession, the possessor is presumed to possess it in good faith, peace, and public performance (Article 197 (1) of the Civil Act). Since there is no evidence to reverse such presumption, the above assertion is without merit.

F, the original owner E, is one of the instant land.