A. AA completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 3, 1945, on the ground of sale in March 20, 1945 with respect to the land of Net City YJ 235 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). < Amended by Act No. 2690, May 3, 1945>

B. From October 20, 1968, the Plaintiff, at the latest registered as the first resident registration, resided in the house above the instant land while occupying the said land, and neglected the said house to move to a bridge around 1990. On around 2000, the said house was completely cut down, and at present, the instant land is a large tree-free person.

C. AA died on June 18, 1971, and the Defendants are the inheritors of AA.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), the result of the on-site inspection by the court of the first instance, the result of each fact inquiry by the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff occupied the land of this case for 20 years counting from October 20, 1968, and it is presumed that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case for the purpose of peaceful performance under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, on October 20, 1988, the acquisition by prescription for the plaintiff's land of this case was completed after 20 years from the date of the above commencement.

I would like to say.

B. However, on the other hand, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff lost possession of the land in around 200, when the Plaintiff was a director of the 1990 governing school, left the house of this case and left the house of this case. Since then around 2000, both the house of this case was abandoned and the house of this case was sexually cut down. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff lost possession of the land in around 2000 when the house of this case was completely cut down (the Plaintiff paid the property tax on the land of this case until 2009, the third party did not occupy the land of this case, and the Plaintiff applied for the issuance of a confirmation certificate on the land of this case, alone is insufficient due to the circumstance that the Plaintiff applied for the issuance of the confirmation certificate on the land of this case).