1. The Defendant is on March 28, 2016, based on the completion of the prescription period for acquisition of possession on March 28, 2016 with respect to the land size of 274 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 28, 1996, the Plaintiff purchased from the network D (hereinafter “the network”) for KRW 19,240,000,00 from Chungcheongnam-gun E-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “E land”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the above land on March 29, 196.

B. On July 3, 1981, the Deceased completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of 274 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Around 2002, the Defendant, a child of the Deceased, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the said land on October 22, 2002.

C. The land E and the land of this case are adjoining one another without being divided into rice paddys, etc., and the Plaintiff is above the land of this case.

Since purchasing the same as the entry in the port, each of the above lands was occupied and used by continuously cultivating the E land and the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff continued to possess the instant land for a period of 20 years from March 28, 1996, and is presumed to have occupied the instant land as an intention to own, peace, and openly possessed pursuant to Article 197 of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s acquisition by prescription for the instant land was completed after the lapse of March 28, 2016, barring any special circumstance.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on March 28, 2016 with respect to the instant land to the Plaintiff.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant cultivated the instant land before the Deceased died in around 2002, and, as the Defendant was unable to manage after the Deceased’s death, the Plaintiff arbitrarily occupied and used the instant land, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land constitutes an occupation without permission.

Since the Plaintiff purchased E-land, the Deceased.