A. The land owned by Defendant B, who completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 24, 1996, on the ground of sale on December 23, 1996.

B. The adjoining land in the instant case is the land of 134 square meters or less in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, which is adjacent to the instant land.

The original netF acquired ownership on December 11, 1968 of the same year due to sale and purchase on December 6, 1968 and died, and Defendant C, his child, completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 27, 199 due to inheritance by consultation and division on December 8, 1979.

C. The term “the instant house” refers to a wooden mentor and coagumary 28.27m2 and 'the instant house’ in which the instant adjacent land is located.

A) A building constructed around September 8, 1947 is a building for which the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 15, 1971 by Defendant C on the ground of sale and purchase on December 12, 1971. D. The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with Defendant C on July 31, 2019 with respect to the instant adjacent land and the instant housing on the same day. E. Meanwhile, the instant housing is installed on the instant land beyond the boundary of the land. The scope of the instant housing is attached to the fence, etc., and the ownership of which was acquired by completing the registration of ownership transfer on the same date. In addition, the instant housing is installed on the instant land beyond the boundary of the land. The scope of the instant housing is the land in sequence connected with each of the items in the attached Form No. 6, 7, 8, 14, 13, 12, 11, and 6 (hereinafter referred to as “land in dispute”).

(1) 【No dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7, the result of the appraisal commission to the branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant C succeeded to the possession of the land of this case, with the knowledge that the land of this case was part of the neighboring land by Defendant C’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the land of this case was occupied by the intention of possession as a site of this case, and the Defendant C succeeded to this possession.

Therefore, Defendant B’s land in this case.