2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff’s father HeD (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of transfer of ownership on June 2, 1995 with respect to E’s 1,554 square meters (hereinafter “E”) before E at the time of residence on June 5, 1995.

On March 4, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance by consultation and division on December 12, 2008 with respect to the above land on March 4, 2009, the deceased’s death.

B. The Defendant is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on January 20, 1998, with respect to 2,898 square meters (hereinafter “C land”) before C at the time of resident registration on February 20, 1998.

C. From June 5, 1995, the Deceased occupied the portion of “c” portion 145 square meters in the ship connecting each point of E and C’s land owned by E and the Defendant, which is indicated in the attached Form No. 27, 31 to 35, 21 to 27, from among E’s land and C’s land.

The plaintiff who inherited the deceased is currently occupying and using it while cultivating fruit trees, such as diversary rooms and bamboo trees, in the part of the dispute of this case.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9 through 11 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each of the records and images, and the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the resident branch of the Daegu North Korean Headquarters of the Republic of Korea National Land Information Corporation in the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition 1), it is reasonable to view that the deceased commenced possession of the part of the dispute of this case from June 5, 1995 to around June 5, 195, and the plaintiff succeeded to possession after the deceased's death and possessed it until the date of the closing of argument of this case. 2) As to this, the defendant asserted that the deceased and the plaintiff did not continue to possess the part of the dispute of this case, or that they did not start possession on June 5, 1995.

According to the video of the evidence No. 5, the plaintiff did not plant or cultivate crops in the dispute of this case.