1. The Defendant indicated in the attached sheet No. 5 to 11, 33, 32, 31, 18 through 23, 29, 30.

Facts of recognition

In around 1982, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 (Contract) No. 990 square meters prior to D from C around 1982 is deemed to be a clerical error in the statement “F at Paju City, but, in full view of the respective statements as set forth in No. 2, No. 4-1, and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the witness C’s testimony, this is deemed to be a clerical error in

(hereinafter “instant land”) purchased KRW 1,200,000 for the purchase price, and has cultivated the said land around that time.

C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land on January 7, 1978. The land cadastre corresponding to the instant land was closed, and there is no cadastral map corresponding to the relevant land category and land register.

On the other hand, there is a land cadastre and a cadastral map with respect to B 8,410 square meters, but there is no copy of the register, according to the above land cadastre, B was restored on October 28, 1964 and registered for the preservation of ownership under E on January 18, 1983.

As a result of conducting a survey to specify the location and area of the land possessed by the Plaintiff during the instant lawsuit, the land that the Plaintiff thought and occupied was the instant land purchased from C was a part of 3,677 square meters as indicated in paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 8,410 square meters of land B (hereinafter “land occupied in this case”).

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including a serial number), and the result of this court's request for the measurement, appraisal, and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation's branch office, the result of fact inquiry of the court's strike of this case, Eul's testimony, the whole purport of pleading, and the above fact-finding, according to the fact-finding, it is presumed that the plaintiff occupied the occupied part of this case with the intention to own the land of this case for at least 20 years, regardless of special circumstances.