1. The Defendants indicated 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 18, 16, 17, 17, and 1 of the [Attachment] drawings among 164, 164, 16, and 1 of the Plaintiff.

1. According to the judgment of the court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the appraiser M's appraisal results and the purport of the entire arguments, the plaintiff acquired ownership transfer registration in the name of N. P. on March 13, 1971, N transferred the N's rights and obligations on the land of this case according to the shares indicated in the inheritance shares of the annexed successors. Since around July 5, 1953, the plaintiff acquired ownership transfer registration on the land of this case for 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 18, 16, 17, 17, and 164 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case"). The plaintiff acquired ownership transfer registration on the land of this case for 419 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case") connected to each of the above land of this case for 1,500 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case"), and the plaintiff acquired ownership transfer registration on the land of this case for 3,5000 square meters.

According to the above facts, since the Plaintiff’s possession of the portion of land A in this case is presumed to be autonomous, peaceful, and public performance possession, the Plaintiff is deemed to have acquired the ownership of land A in this case by prescription on July 5, 1973, after 20 years from July 5, 1953, which began to occupy the portion of land A in this case.

In regard to this, the defendants defense to the effect that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case without permission, and thus the presumption of possession with intention to occupy the land of this case is destroyed. However, the evidence submitted by the defendants alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.