1. The Defendant is based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on December 12, 2017, with respect to the land size of 2392 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 1980, the land created by the Defendant as a D reclaimed project in order to sell it to an individual, the Defendant was in the process of selling it to an individual.

The defendant, around 1981, entered into a sales contract with the non-party deceased E on the land and sold it, and the network E paid all the price of the land to the defendant.

B. On October 15, 1984, the Defendant completed a registration of preservation of ownership on the above land. The above land was changed on June 1, 2004 by the management authority, and its lot number and size are changed, and it became 2392m2m2, Dai-gun, Dai-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On November 17, 2012, the Plaintiff’s father, deceased on November 17, 2012, G, H, I, J, and K, the inheritor, made an agreement on the division of inherited property with the Plaintiff’s sole ownership of the instant land on November 17, 2017.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) The deceased may be acknowledged as having acquired and possessed the land of this case from around 1984 in full view of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 8 through 10. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case in a peaceful and openly performing the deceased’s possession from December 11, 1997, which was over twenty years from the time of the death’s possession, as well as from December 12, 2017 to December 11, 1997. Therefore, the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on December 14, 2017 to the plaintiff. 2) Since there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant sold the land of this case to the deceased, the deceased and the plaintiff’s possession constitutes an owner of the land. However, according to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor is presumed to have possession as the intention of possession.