1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

The reason why the court should explain this case is as stated in Articles 1 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the defendant added the following 2.3 of the judgment as to the matters alleged in the trial. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that, from around 30 years ago, the ownership of the land in the dispute in this case was acquired by prescription, or that the passage right was acquired by prescription for the entry of the land in this case for the purpose of having contributed to the land, since the Plaintiff had occupied the house on the ground of his own partitioned ownership among the land in this case while residing in the part of the land in this case among the land in this case.

In calculating the period of acquisition by prescription, where the owner of the pertinent real estate changes during the period of possession, the claimant for the period of acquisition by prescription cannot assert the completion of prescription on the ground that he/she arbitrarily selected the starting point of counting or occupied for at least 20 years retroactively. Such legal principle as to the acquisition by prescription by prescription of ownership applies likewise to the acquisition by prescription of traffic zones to which Article 245 of the Civil Act applies mutatis mutandis in accordance with Article 294 of the Civil Act on the acquisition by prescription of servitude (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17479, Mar. 20, 2015). In full view of the respective entries and arguments in subparagraphs 2 and 4, the fact that the Plaintiff used the instant disputed land as a transit concurrently from the year 1971, but in full view of the purport of the entry and pleading in subparagraph 1-1, the Defendant can recognize the fact that the ownership transfer registration by transfer of ownership was completed on the land on November 27, 2012.

Even if the registration of ownership transfer has been made after the completion, the defendant can assert the acquisition by prescription.