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

A. The deceased J (hereinafter, the Deceased) constructed two-story housing (hereinafter, the instant housing) on the ground of 274m2, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of ownership preservation as of July 27, 197, and used the instant access road for the purpose of contributing to the passage of access roads.

B. The Deceased sold the instant housing and its site to L around October 17, 1977, L to M, and M to N in sequence.

C. Around May 24, 198, the Plaintiff purchased and occupied the instant house and its site from N, and around July 1, 1998, the Plaintiff removed the instant house and constructed and owned multi-household houses with three floors above the ground level on the site.

The Deceased died on January 26, 1989, and the Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and H inherited the Deceased, who is the denied Defendant B and his children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff purchased the instant house and land from the Deceased at the same time, and thereafter, the Plaintiff purchased the instant access road prior to the purchase of the instant house and land from N around May 24, 198, with the knowledge that the access road at the time of purchase of the instant house and land from N around N around May 24, 198, was included in the instant house site, and was in possession of the instant access road in peace and openly and openly with the intent to own it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim for ownership transfer registration on May 24, 2008 on the part on the instant access road due to the completion of the prescription period for possession.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession on the above date.

B. The Deceased’s assertion of the Defendants did not sell the access road of this case along with the instant house and its site, and the access road of this case was provided to the surrounding users for official use, and the Plaintiff did not exclusively occupy the access road.