2. The Plaintiff’s Appointor C is not less than 1,736 square meters in Ansan-si D.

A. The Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and G are the Appointed C’s children.

B. H around March 7, 1947 with respect to the 1,736 square meters in Ansan-si D (hereinafter “instant land”) and around April 12, 1965, H completed the registration of ownership transfer according to 1/2 shares of each of the aforementioned G around March 7, 1947.

C. Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) and Appointed E, and Appointed F are children of H who died on May 31, 1981, and I, the spouse of H, as well as H’s heir.

H’s 1/2 shares of H on the instant land due to the death of H, 3/10 each of 3/10 of the remaining Appointers E and I, his spouse, and 2/10 of the Defendant and Appointors F, respectively.

E. After that, as I died on October 2, 1989, 3/20 ( = 1/2 x 3/10 x 3/10 x 1/2 x 1/6 x 1/2) shares in the land of this case were transferred to 4/6 by the designated parties E, the defendant and the designated parties F, respectively. The shares in inheritance of E in the land of this case = 1/4 [ = (3/10 x 4/6) x 1/2] x 1/2], and the shares in inheritance of the defendant and the designated parties x 1/8 [ = (2/10 x 3/10 x 1/6 x 1/6] x 1/2]; respectively.

F. On October 3, 1950, the Plaintiff Appointed purchased the instant land and thereafter possessed it to the present day, and thereafter, the Plaintiff Appointers C had occupied the said land, and the Plaintiff Appointed the 1/2 shares of J as above.

The registration of ownership transfer is completed in the G, which is a child, according to the receipt No. 12877 of April 12, 1965, as stated in the Suwon District Court's Ansan registry.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 7 evidence, Eul's 1 through 3 (including Serial number), the whole purport of pleading

2. On the other hand, according to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied the article as his/her owner’s intention. As such, if the possessor claims the acquisition by prescription, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention, and on the other hand, he/she bears the burden of proving the establishment of the acquisition by prescription against the possessor

And the possessor's possession is the intention of ownership.