A. D completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase on March 9, 1959 with respect to E large 2823 square meters in Jeju-si on December 21, 1959 (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”). After that, the land before the instant subdivision was the land E-si in Jeju-si and the land category change on August 30, 1984 and the land before the instant subdivision was 574 square meters in Jeju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

D When the Counterclaim Defendant died on March 9, 200, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 12, 2015 due to inheritance due to a consultation or division on the land of this case.

B. The Defendant, around August 31, 1984, performed the F Expansion Project, which is an urban planning facility (road) in accordance with the Jeju Urban Planning Act (hereinafter “instant project”), and occupied and managed the instant project site including the instant land by opening a road on the instant project site and providing it for the passage of the general public around August 31, 1984.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim among the counterclaims

A. The fact that the Lessee occupied and managed the land of this case for not less than 20 years from August 31, 1984 that the judgment on the cause of the claim was completed on August 31, 1984 is presumed to have occupied the land of this case as seen earlier, and the Lessee, the possessor, is presumed to have occupied the land in a peaceful and public performance manner with its own intent. As such, the prescriptive acquisition on August 31, 2004 passed thereafter.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the counterclaim Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on August 31, 2004 with respect to the instant land to the counterclaim on the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition on August 31, 200

B. The possessor of the counterclaim Defendant’s assertion of possession is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). Therefore, the possessor is not liable to prove that he/she has occupied as his/her own intent when claiming the prescriptive acquisition.