1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) each of the following is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, referring to the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1 on the ground of 193 square meters in

1. Fact-finding;

A. On December 29, 201, the Plaintiff acquired ownership after completing the registration of ownership transfer based on sale with respect to D large scale 193 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

On April 2, 1981, Defendant B acquired the ownership of the E large scale 285 square meters and the housing on its ground adjacent to the instant land.

B. Of the instant land, “A” portion not exceeding 13 square meters in the ship connected in order to each point of “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1” indicated in the attached reference is deemed to be the land portion in the instant dispute.

(C) On the ground, the Defendant B’s house, stop, storage, toilets, fences, trees, and drainages are located on the ground. The Defendant C leased and occupies the housing on the ground of the instant land in the instant dispute from the Defendant B. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, and 3, the result of the commission of the measurement and appraisal to the Chungcheong branch office of the Chungcheong Headquarters of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to perform as set forth in paragraph (1) of this Article to the Plaintiff seeking the exclusion of disturbance as the owner of the land in the dispute of this case, unless there are special circumstances

B. As to the claim for the prescriptive acquisition by Defendant B, the summary of the claim is as follows: (1) Defendant B, for twenty (20) years, occupied the part of the land in the instant dispute in a peaceful manner with the intention of ownership, thereby completing the prescription period for acquisition of possession;

(2) Even if the acquisition by prescription has expired, if the acquisition by prescription has not yet been registered due to the completion of prescription, it cannot be asserted against the third party who acquired the real estate.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da29740 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). Defendant B occupied the part of the land in the instant dispute for twenty (20) years from April 2, 1981, but still completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name as to the relevant part of land due to the completion of the statute of limitations for possession.