1. Of the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list, the Defendant indicated in the attached list No. 22, 21, 13, 20, 19, 18, 15, 15, 2, 3, among the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition [based on recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, images of evidence Gap evidence 4 and 5, the result of survey and appraisal by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings];

A. The Defendant is the owner who completed registration of ownership preservation around December 14, 1959 with respect to each of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. B around May 27, 198, around 198, purchased land for factory C, 1101 square meters (hereinafter “instant factory site”) and two-story factory buildings (hereinafter “instant factory building”) adjacent to the instant land from the former owner, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day. On January 15, 2008, B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant factory site and factory building on the ground of donation from January 8, 2008 to the Plaintiff.

C. Of the instant land, the part on the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 is divided into cement fences before B purchases the instant factory site and factory building, and has been used as the site for the instant factory building until now.

2. Determination

A. The possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own will (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act); the successor to the possessor may at his own discretion assert only his own possession or assert both his own possession and the former possessor’s possession (Article 199 of the Civil Act); and the person claiming the acquisition by prescription may at his own discretion choose the starting point for the acquisition by prescription for land without any change of the owner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da30013 delivered on November 26, 1993, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff, who was the successor of B and B, has occupied the part of the land indicated in Paragraph (1) of this case among the land of this case divided into cement fence, as the owner of the building of this case from May 27, 198 to the owner of the building of this case. Thus, from May 27, 198 to May 208, the above part of the land of this case was occupied openly and openly by the owner of the building of this case.