1. The Defendant, at the time of residing in the Plaintiff, indicated in the attached Form 1 Map No. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 27, among the land miscellaneous land No. 1,372 square meters.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At the time of residence, 1,372 square meters in C miscellaneous land (hereinafter “instant land”) was originally owned D. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant’s name on the ground of sale as of July 31, 1976, around June 6, 1976.

B. The instant land has a warehouse building constructed around 1975 (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).

If the above land is divided into the wall wall north of the warehouse of this case and the extension line thereof, the remaining part of the land is 265 square meters in part 265 square meters in the ship which successively connects 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 11 of the annexed drawing No. 2 (hereinafter “land in this case”).

C. The Plaintiff’s father E, his father, from 1981 to 1982, leased the warehouse of this case to a third party and received rent income.

The network E died on June 5, 2015.

In around 2017, the Plaintiff, F, G, H, I, and J, the heir of the network E, was solely inherited by the Plaintiff the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer of the land in the instant dispute and agreed on the division of inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9, the result of the appraiser K's survey and appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiff's claim

A. A. A summary of the party’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff Lri residents purchased the instant land from the Defendant’s father M in around 1975 to build a village warehouse. The village residents built and jointly used the instant warehouse on the instant land, and sold the instant land to E in KRW 1 million in around 1981, when they did not use the warehouse. Since E had occupied the instant land in peace and openly with the intention to own the instant land by owning the instant warehouse since 1981, it was the expiration of the prescriptive acquisition on December 31, 2001, and the instant land was not subject to sale.

Therefore, it can be said that E occupied the land in the dispute of this case with the intention of ownership.