1. The Plaintiff, while the Plaintiff is a racing-si B road of 1349 square meters;

(a) As to the portion of 1/15 shares in the Selection C:

(b) Selected D shall be 6/15.

1.The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 16 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

On January 14, 1958, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in F on January 14, 1958 with respect to the land B, 1349 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. F, upon the death of November 6, 1976, C succeeded to the 1/15 shares of the land ownership of this case, 1/15 shares, D/15 shares, 6/15 shares, and F’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son, and E inherited the 4/15 shares, respectively.

C. The instant land is incorporated into a Gpark site and used as a road managed by the State since the land category was changed from the site to the road on December 20, 1958. However, from February 1, 1963 to February 1, 1963, the instant land is used as a national highway managed by the Plaintiff, a local government, as a management agency.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the State occupied the land of this case as a road from December 20, 1958 to December 20, 1958, and occupied and managed the land of this case by succession of the state by the Plaintiff. Thus, the acquisition by prescription as to the land of this case by the Plaintiff was completed on December 20, 1978, which was 20 years from December 20, 1958, barring any special circumstance.

Therefore, among the land in this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on December 20, 1978 with respect to the shares of 1/15 shares in the Selection C, the shares of 6/15 shares in the Selection D, the shares of 4/15 shares in the Defendant (Appointed Party) and Selection E, respectively.

3. Determination as to the defendant (appointed party)'s assertion

A. The gist of the Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion that the Plaintiff incorporated the instant land into a road and paid compensation to H, not F, as such, it cannot be deemed that the instant land was incorporated into a road according to lawful procedures, and thus, the presumption of possession with autonomy should be deemed to have been broken.

Therefore, it is true.