1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim for ownership transfer registration based on the primary sale with respect to the land of 1,828 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Cheongong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and the preliminary claim for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition. The first instance court dismissed the primary claim and accepted the preliminary claim.

As the defendant appealed, this Court decides only the conjunctive claim.

2. Basic facts

A. As to the land of this case, the registration of ownership transfer due to the inheritance of Australia on December 13, 1956 in the name of the defendant's father D, his father on October 29, 198, and the registration of ownership transfer due to the inheritance due to the division as of July 27, 1999 in the name of the defendant on July 27, 199, respectively.

B. From December 1987, the Plaintiff, who is a net D, is occupying the instant land from around December 1987 to the present date while cultivating it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has occupied the land of this case by peacefully performing with the intent to own it from around December 1987 to at least 20 years, and thus, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the completion of the statute of limitations for possession on December 31, 2008.

B. Determination 1) The possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith and public performance with his own will (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), and the starting date of the commencement of the possession is not the choice at his own discretion in calculating the period of the acquisition by prescription, but if there is no change to the actual owner, it is sufficient to view the completion of the acquisition by prescription as at the time the actual owner can assert the completion of the acquisition by prescription and confirm the expiration of the period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da44089, Apr. 14, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 9Da4089, Apr. 14, 1998).