1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 31 among the land size of 1,752 square meters in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 14, 1987, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase from D and four other members of Changwon-si E prior to 248 square meters (hereinafter “the instant trade land”), and the same year.

8. 13. Payment of the purchase price.

B. The Plaintiff, among the land adjoining to the instant trade land (hereinafter “the instant land”), planted trees to the instant land and laid down dry field farming shed on the instant land since the payment of the purchase price by mistake on the part 386 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) of the attached table Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 31, 30, 29, 29, 28, 27, 26, and 4.

C. The Defendant purchased the instant land from F on February 23, 2004 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1-7 and 12, result of a request for surveying and appraisal to appraiser G, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff purchased the land of this case in contact with it, and possessed the part of the land of this case in peace and openly and with the intent of possession from August 13, 1987, which cultivated the part of the land of this case. Thus, it shall be deemed that the prescription period of possession on August 13, 2007, which was 20 years thereafter, has expired.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription on the part of the land in this case to the plaintiff.

3. The defendant's assertion asserts that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case with the knowledge that the land of this case was not owned by the plaintiff.

However, according to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, since the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied as his/her own will, the possessor does not bear any responsibility for proving his/her own intention in cases where the possessor claims the acquisition by prescription, and rather he/she does not have the intention