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

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 4, 1941 with respect to the land of this case in the name of the defendant on September 6, 1993, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant on September 6, 1993.

B. 1) On the land of this case, possession of the instant land is 16.53 square meters on the land of this case, the land of this case, which is a sculpture ment block block house of this case (hereinafter “instant building”).

2) The instant building was sold in the following order:

① On January 16, 1985, the sales contract between EF and F on November 28, 1989, between GH on November 28, 1989: (a) GH on October 18, 199; (b) H A3) H on December 20, 200; (c) the name of the document is indicated as “family sales contract”. Each sales contract concerning the instant building between G and H and H on December 20, 200; and (d) the name of the document as “family sales contract” is written as “family sales contract”; and (e) the seller sells the building only to the buyer, and the site-related party is written as “the buyer concludes a contract of registration.” The fact that there is no dispute over recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as well as the purport of the submission of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 3-1 through 5, 3-5, and all pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion, E, F, G, and H have occupied the instant land, which is the site of the instant building, in a peaceful and performing manner with the intent to own it.

E From January 16, 1985, 200 years passed since January 16, 1985, the limitation period for the acquisition of possession of the land of this case, which succeeded to the possession of the land of this case from E in sequence from January 16, 2005, was completed.

3. Determination on whether to recognize the prescriptive acquisition

A. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act of the legal doctrine on the presumption of autonomous possession, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her owner’s intention. Therefore, in cases where the possessor claims prescriptive acquisition, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her intention. Rather, the possessor