1. The defendant is based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription on June 9, 1987 with respect to the land size A 231 square meters in Gangseo-si, Gangseo-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 22, 1961, the Defendant (the Seoul Female’s Institute was the first incorporated foundation, which was the school foundation on January 25, 1964, and the school foundation was changed to the Daeyang Institute on May 17, 1972) completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to the land which was 363 square meters in Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si (hereinafter “the land before the division”) with the registration and receipt No. 4241 on December 22, 1961.

B. On June 9, 1967, the land prior to subdivision was divided into a road of 231 square meters and B 132 square meters. The Plaintiff, on the same day, has changed the land category of A to a road of 231 square meters on the same day (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff occupied and used a road of 231 square meters on the instant land, including the instant land, by building a road on the instant land and providing it for the general public’s passage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, 10 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On June 9, 1967, when the land category of the Plaintiff’s land was changed to a road, the Plaintiff lawfully acquired the instant land from the Defendant, the owner of the instant land, and opened the road, and thereafter occupy the land for the purpose of public passage and public performance by providing it to the public, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the instant land as of June 9, 1987, after the lapse of 20 years from the date the Plaintiff occupied the land.

B. Defendant 1) The Plaintiff opened, occupied, and used the road on the said land without permission, without permission, for the lawful expropriation or purchase of the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff’s possession constitutes an occupation of a third party. (ii) Even if the Plaintiff acquired prescription for the instant land, the Plaintiff expressed his intention to purchase the instant land by paying compensation to the Defendant on August 18, 2014, and the Plaintiff renounced the prescription benefit.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff frequently occupied the instant land.