1. The defendant is based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription on January 1, 1999 with respect to the land size of 730 square meters in Haan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun.

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and Eul evidence No. 2 (including branch numbers), with a comprehensive view to the purport of the whole pleadings. (a)

Before the division, approximately 676 square meters (hereinafter “land before division”) was owned by E, which is the husband of the defendant.

B. On March 6, 1991, the land before subdivision was divided into 625 square meters (in accordance with the unit of area converted as above; hereinafter the same shall apply) and 1,610 square meters prior to the said C, and the said C was divided into 730 square meters prior to the said C on January 20, 1994 (hereinafter “instant land”) and 880 square meters prior to the said G, due to the acquisition of public land in Gyeong-do.

C. Upon the death of E, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 20, 2008 on the instant land due to inheritance due to the agreement and division as of March 12, 2006.

Meanwhile, since the Plaintiff occupied the part of the instant land among the pre-divisiond land in around 1978, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land from around 1978.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the instant land in a peaceful and public manner with his/her own will. On the other hand, if the registrant continues to engage in the same transaction during the period of prescriptive acquisition, it is sufficient to view the starting point of counting and the point at which it is possible to claim the completion of prescriptive acquisition between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da8496, 8502, May 12, 1998). 2) Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is sufficient that the Plaintiff, who was occupying the instant part of the land before subdivision, was presumed to have occupied the instant land in a peaceful and public performance manner with his/her own will, and therefore, the Plaintiff is presumed to have occupied the instant land from E as of May 12, 198.