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

A. At the time of the division, C forest land 3,749 square meters (hereinafter “C forest before division”) was owned by D. The Plaintiff’s father E and the Defendant’s father F inherited one-half shares, respectively.

B. On February 18, 1994, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership as to H’s 642/3,749 shares among C forest land unregistered on February 18, 1994, and 846/3,749 shares in G, and 1,130.5/3,749 shares respectively.

C. Before partition, C forest land was divided into C forest land 2,207 square meters, 642 square meters of I forest land, J forest land 846 square meters, and 54 square meters of K forest land.

On April 7, 1997, the Plaintiff, Defendant, G, and H owned the land divided by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”), HA’s land, and G owned the J land. Co-owned property partition consultation was conducted on April 8, 1997. As to the instant land on April 8, 1997, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff, Defendant, and H in the name of the Plaintiff, and the J land, and in the name of the G with respect to the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including those with serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. A. Around 1968, F of the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff asserted that the appraisal of the instant land was sold to L, in sequence, the part (B) part of the attached Table No. 12, 14, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 connected each point among the instant land, which was 39 square meters connected to L. L was sold to M by setting up the house on the land in the instant dispute and selling it to M. On August 29, 1976, the Plaintiff purchased the part of the instant dispute and the land in the instant case to acquire it from M, and occupied it in peace and public performance with the intention to own it up to the date.

Therefore, on September 20, 1996, the period of prescription for the acquisition of shares by the defendant 1/2 out of the land in the dispute part of this case, which was 20 years after the lapse of 20 years, shall be deemed to have expired. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure

B. As to the acquisition by prescription of real estate, whether the possessor is the owner who has the intention to own the real estate or the owner who has no intention to own it.