1. The Defendants shall acquire by prescription on September 30, 2016, with respect to each of one-fourths shares, among two square meters of land Franc-gu Seoul, Seoul, with respect to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 30, 1996, the Plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the G ground building in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and had engaged in steel products, construction materials, and boiler installation business with the trade name “H” in the above building. The Plaintiff has used the F-gu Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”) land as the entrance passage passage and material loading, etc. of “H” until now.

B. On May 24, 1974, I completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land. After that I died, I’s shares in inheritance of the Defendants, who are their inheritors, are 1/4, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, C, and E, the Plaintiff may recognize that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land by September 30, 2016 after the lapse of 20 years from September 30, 1996, and the possession is presumed to have been made in peace and public performance with the intention to own, and thus, the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim the transfer registration on September 30, 2016 for the instant land on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period.

Therefore, the Defendants, the deceased I’s heir, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on September 30, 2016 with respect to each of the instant shares of one-fourths of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

B. The part of the claim against the defendant D is identical to the description of the facts of recognition of the claim.

(2) Judgment by public notice based on which determination is based (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.