1. The Defendant: (a) among the 195m20m2 in leisure water to the Plaintiff; (b)

(a) connect each point in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, and 1;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased a land of 195 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) from a female agricultural cooperative in female water and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 20, 2016.

B. The Defendant constructed 9 square meters of an unauthorized house on the ground level (A) section of the instant land, which connects each point of which is indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 3, and 1, on the ground level, the part of the instant land, which is located on the (B) section of the instant land, with a stone fence installed on the area of 17 square meters above the ground level, which connects each point of which is indicated in the same drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, and occupied and used the said part (A), 26 square meters of the land in the said part

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, the result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above findings of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the above unauthorized house and fence and deliver the land in the above part (a) and (b) to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that since 1983, the acquisition by prescription has been completed by occupying the above part of the land (A) and (b) in peace and openly and openly with the intention to own the land for 20 years.

Where the possessor has completed the registration of ownership transfer by a third party before the possessor completes the registration of ownership transfer, the possessor may not claim the acquisition by prescription against the third party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45402 delivered on July 10, 1998, etc.). Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the period when the Defendant’s acquisition by prescription of possession of the land in the above part (a) and (b) is completed is about 2003 years. The Plaintiff’s completion of the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land in this case on December 20, 2016, which is after the completion of the said prescription, is the same as that recognized earlier. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified and acceptable.