1. The defendant is based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription on May 18, 2003, with respect to the land size of 1,176 square meters prior to Silung-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 14, 1983, the Plaintiff’s father purchased 3,934 square meters in Nam-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “the instant dry field”) from D on May 14, 1983, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 18, 1983. After the Plaintiff’s death, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 2, 1993 due to the inheritance of property due to the consultation division.

B. The dry field of this case has a waterway on the upper part of the dry field of this case, and the dry field of this case and the waterway of this case are adjacent to the dry field of this case with the shape where B B was narrow and long up to South and North Korea.

C. From the time of purchase of the dry field of this case to the time of the death of August 21, 1990, the Deceased continued to cultivate and occupy the land adjacent to the dry field of this case as well as the neighboring land. The Plaintiff, together with the Deceased, has occupied the dry field of this case and the land in this case by himself.

The instant land was registered in the new cadastral record on February 18, 2014, and on January 21, 2015, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the Defendant’s name.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff succeeding to the possession of the deceased and the deceased continued to possess the land of this case since the time of the purchase of the dry field of this case, and its possession is presumed to have been harmful to the peace and performance of its own intent. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the prescription period for the possession of the land of this case was completed on May 18, 2003 after the lapse of 20 years.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land of this case to the plaintiff on May 18, 2003 due to the completion of the prescription period for possession acquisition.

B. As to this, the Defendant is a simple mistake in light of the fact that the area of the instant land exceeds approximately 30% of the dry field of this case.