1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 22, 1974, the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s land and the land before subdivision, cultivated an orchard, and sold the remainder of the land before subdivision to F, except the instant land. The F made registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the entire land before subdivision.

From November 22, 1974, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for twenty (20) years from November 22, 1974, and the prescriptive acquisition on the instant land was completed on November 22, 1994.

B. Even if possession from November 22, 1974 is not recognized, the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate from December 2, 1993, which the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land, and during the possession period, the owner of the instant land is identical to the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff may claim the completion of the prescriptive acquisition from January 18, 2018, which is the 20th anniversary of the said possession period.

3. Determination

A. Determination 1 as to the Plaintiff’s possession of the real estate in the calculation of the period of acquisition by prescription cannot be asserted for the completion of prescription solely on the ground that the claimant for acquisition by prescription voluntarily selected the starting point of counting or occupied for not less than 20 years retroactively. In such a case, the court recognizes the starting point of real possession as recognized by the litigation data without seeking a party’s assertion, and then determines the propriety of the claim for acquisition by prescription based on the above facts (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da3987, May 23, 1995). In light of the above facts, the court should recognize the starting point of possession recognized by the litigation data, since the Plaintiff’s change in the owner exists during the period of possession of the land in the instant case claimed by the Plaintiff.

However, Gap evidence 10 (including paper numbers).