1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, on the part of the Plaintiff, the Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 340 square meters in Gyeong-

1. Basic facts

A. On August 17, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale with respect to the land of 340 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant, as the owner of the land adjacent to the instant land, owned an unauthorized warehouse on the above ground. The part of the said warehouse is constructed on the ground part of the attached Form No. 1, (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (1) connected each point in sequence with the land of this case on the ground of the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the warehouse on the ground of the possession of the land of this case and deliver the said land to the plaintiff as the owner, unless he has no title to the possession of the land of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) asserts that the Defendant: (a) purchased and owned the Defendant’s father-E from F in 1956, the D large 446 square meters and the above-owned building without permission on the ground from F in 1956; and (b) occupied in peace and openly for 20 years or longer; and (c) died, the Defendant acquired the land occupied in this case by inheritance; and (d) acquired it in good faith by inheritance.

A third party who has acquired the ownership of real estate by completing a registration of ownership transfer prior to the completion of the acquisition by prescription may not claim the acquisition by prescription unless the registration in the name of the third party is null and void.

(Supreme Court Decision 92Da21258 delivered on September 25, 1992). The fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land on August 17, 2012 is as seen earlier. Thus, the Plaintiff may not assert the prescriptive acquisition against the Plaintiff, unless the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said Plaintiff’s name is null and void.

Plaintiff

The registration of transfer of ownership in a name shall be null and void.