1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant on the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff on 205.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 9, 1983, the registration of ownership preservation was completed on the land of this case in the future of the defendant.

B. From around 1984 to 1985, the Plaintiff carried out the expansion and packing work of D roads (hereinafter “instant roads”) leading from Goyang-si to Goyang-si (hereinafter “instant roads”) on the instant land and its surrounding land from Goyang-si (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

C. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction around September 24, 1985, and from December 31, 1985, managed the instant road and occupied the instant land.

(A) Evidence No. 12-1) / [Grounds for recognition] / 3] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry and video of Evidence No. 1 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the land of this case from the defendant on March 30, 1985 through a public site acquisition procedure, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

3. As to the conjunctive claim

A. The possessor is presumed to have occupied real estate in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intention of ownership for twenty (20) years by filing for registration (Article 245(1) of the Civil Act). Since the possessor is presumed to have occupied real estate in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intention of ownership (Article 197 and Article 198(2) of the Civil Act), the possessor is not liable to prove that he/she occupied his/her own intent when claiming the prescriptive acquisition, and rather, the possessor bears the burden of proof by asserting that the possession was not carried out with the intention of ownership.

However, whether or not the possessor's possession is the intention of possession is not determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by all circumstances related to the nature of the title which is the cause of the acquisition or the possession.