On October 8, 1971, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 619 square meters prior to Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu.

Around 1977, the Defendant, the owner of the D previous 934 square meters (1,554 square meters prior to the division) located in the neighboring land of the instant case, constructed a house, warehouse, etc. on the said D’s land. A part of the said house and warehouse was built with the indication of the attached drawings among the said C’s land owned by the Plaintiff.

(2) On December 13, 1987, G, the husband of the Defendant, and the head of F, succeeded to the above D’s land and housing, and G, on November 30, 2005, donated the Plaintiff the above D’s land and housing on December 30, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings and facts without dispute, Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence, Eul's evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings is that the defendant occupies the land of this case by owning the house constructed on the land of this case without legitimate source of right. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the house of this case.

Since the Defendant’s assertion F purchased the instant land from the Plaintiff, the F occupied the instant land as its owner from around 1977, which constructed the instant land, and as G succeeded to F’s possession, the acquisition by prescription on the instant land was completed on December 31, 1997, after the lapse of 20 years thereafter.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the completion of prescription for possession.

A main claim and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be a same.

We examine whether F and G occupy the instant land as their owner’s intention.

With respect to whether F purchased the instant land from the Plaintiff around 1977, it is difficult to evaluate the objectivity or credibility of the testimony as the witness testified from the Defendant or G, and as the relationship between the Defendant and G is deep, it is difficult to evaluate the objectivity or credibility of the testimony.

The defendant also holds that F.I.D.