1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, among the land size of 2,592 square meters in Seopopopo-si, Seopopo-si.

Basic Facts

A. On March 25, 1987, the Plaintiff’s attached network D completed the registration of ownership transfer as to E orchard 1,564 square meters and F orchard 2,969 square meters (F land was merged into E land on May 4, 2016; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”), and on June 1, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the said land on April 10, 2006, for inheritance by consultation and division.

B. On January 25, 1989, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on January 24, 1989 with respect to the land of the Plaintiff, Seopopo-si, Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, C orchard 2,592 square meters adjacent to the east of the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including virtual numbers), and the plaintiff's assertion as to the purport of the whole pleadings as to the plaintiff's right to access to the plaintiff's land, Eul purchased the part of this case's B from the defendant's land in order to secure access to the plaintiff's land, and occupied and managed the part of this case's land and 150 square meters in order to connect each point of Gap's land in sequence of 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 25, 11 (hereinafter "the part of this case's land"). After the purchase, the plaintiff who acquired the ownership of the plaintiff's land until now possessed and managed the part of this case's land, and the plaintiff's acquisition by prescription as to the part of this case's land was completed.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on January 24, 2009 with respect to the part of the instant case to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, and 12, and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the part of this case was previously accumulated separately from October 1979, and the plaintiff is in possession of citrus tree, etc. in the part of this case.