1. All of the plaintiff's claims that have been changed in exchange at the trial and the plaintiff's claims added at the trial.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, began to occupy the instant land by setting up a house on the Gansan-si, Sinsan-si, 75 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), which is owned D with permission from Dongin-si, Dongin-si, Dongin-si (hereinafter “instant land”), around 1947.

E in return for the instant land, 1/2 of the F-50 square meters in Gyeongsan-si and G 208 square meters in G, H 200 square meters in advance, and 195 square meters in advance before I.D.

After that, on March 26, 1987, the Plaintiff followed the possession of the land in this case by inheritance, and thereafter, occupied the land in peace and performance with the intention to sporadate the house and to spoke trees, etc. as owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to complete the acquisition by prescription on August 1, 2009, where the above F land was completed in the name of the defendant, and twenty years have passed since July 29, 1989, when the above F land was completed in the name of the defendant, or to complete the acquisition by prescription on August 1, 2009, or transfer of ownership on the ground of an exchange of land as of August 1, 1989.

B. 1) The claimant for the completion of the acquisition by prescription must prove the fact of possession. Since the fact of the continuation of possession is presumed to be legally in accordance with Article 198 of the Civil Act, it is not necessary to directly assert and prove the fact of the continued possession for twenty (20) years. However, the fact of possession at a specific point of time and at a specific point of time after twenty (20) years from the said point must be asserted. However, evidence A’s 1 through 14 (including the serial number, hereinafter

) The testimony by J of the witness and the witness of the trial party alone began to occupy the instant land from 1947 to 1947, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land by planting fruit trees, etc. after 1987, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. Unless it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff occupied the Plaintiff, this part of the Plaintiff’s claim on the different premise is without merit without need to further examine. 2) Land Exchange A through 6.