1. The Defendants completed the acquisition by prescription on January 1, 2008 with respect to each of 1/3 shares of E, E, 3,201 square meters, in the event of smuggling to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the networkF are children of the network G, and the defendants are children of the networkF.

The networkF completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land listed in paragraph (1) of the disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of General Farmland (Act No. 1657), which was in force on December 31, 1964.

The networkF died on December 12, 2012, and the Defendants inherited each of the instant land 1/3 shares.

The plaintiff was planted from G around 1987 the land of this case from G around 1987 and has cultivated the above land up to now.

【In the absence of dispute, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and each possession of real estate in peace and openly held intent for twenty (20) years to determine the result of the personal examination of the defendant D and the purport of whole pleadings, the possessor shall be presumed to have acquired the ownership by registering it (Article 245(1) of the Civil Act). The possessor shall be presumed to have occupied the real estate in peace and openly held with his intention to own it (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), and if he had occupied it at the time of transfer

(Article 198 of the Civil Act). According to the above facts, when the plaintiff asserts the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of land with no change of the owner from January 1, 1988, the plaintiff can cite it only when the starting point of the possession is located, or when the statute of limitations has lapsed based on evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Meu16723 delivered on November 9, 1990, etc.). The Plaintiff occupied the instant land from around 1987 to the present time, but there is no change in the owner of the said land from the time of possession to the present time, and thus, the Plaintiff’s commencement of possession shall be deemed the starting point of acquisition by prescription on January 1, 1988, which the Plaintiff considered as

It is recognized that the land in this case has been continuously occupied for not less than 20 years up to now, and it is presumed that the above possession was made in peace and public performance with the intention of ownership.

Therefore, the Defendants each of the instant land to the Plaintiff.