1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Around March 22, 1978, the Plaintiff’s father, who was the Plaintiff’s father, purchased part of the instant land from E in terms of KRW 1.50,00,00, and continued to possess the instant land on the instant land. Around 1994, the Plaintiff received the instant land from the deceased D, or acquired the instant land by solely succeeding the instant land through division of inherited property upon the death of the network D around March 18, 197, and occupied the instant land while cultivating the instant land until now by succeeding the possession. As such, if the period of possession exceeds the period of the Plaintiff’s possession, the acquisition by prescription was completed by the Plaintiff by solely occupying the instant land with the intent to own the instant land for at least 20 years.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the overall purport of the testimony of witness E at the trial, the fact that the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case as of the date of the closing of argument in this case may be acknowledged. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion of prescriptive acquisition is without merit, since it appears that the Plaintiff or the deceased D continued possession of the land of this case for at least 20 years retroactively from December 31, 2014, as well as Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 9-1, and some testimony of witness E are difficult to believe, and the remainder of evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize it. The Plaintiff’s assertion of prescriptive acquisition is without merit.

B. Even if the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, succeeded to the possession of the deceased D and D, continued to possess the instant land for not less than 20 years, the Defendant only has occupied the deceased D with knowledge that the owner of the instant land was not the deceased D without permission. As such, the Plaintiff’s succession to such possession is also a defense of the possession of the owner. As such, whether the possessor is the owner of the land with intention to own or with no intention to own is determined by the occupant’s internal intent, not by the occupant’s internal intent, but by the nature of the title that was the cause of the acquisition of possession or all of the rights related to the possession.