The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the building owned by the Defendant was invaded by the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land on the ground that the result of the survey and appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance trial was unlawful or erroneous.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of survey.

2. If possessory right is acquired by inheritance to the second ground of appeal, the inheritor cannot assert the possession regardless of himself/herself unless he/she commences his/her own possession with a new title, and the time at which he/she succeeds to possession by inheritance cannot claim as the starting point of the acquisition by prescription.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da61410, 61427 Decided December 13, 2007). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense against the acquisition by prescription on August 11, 1981, where the possession of the network S was commenced, deeming the period of prescription as the starting point for the acquisition by prescription, and the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiff who completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 8, 2015, the acquisition by prescription after the completion of the acquisition by prescription as the starting point for the acquisition by prescription. If the owner before the completion of the acquisition by prescription changes, the Defendant cannot choose the starting point of

Examining the record in accordance with the above legal principles, the lower court’s conclusion rejecting the Defendant’s defense of prescriptive acquisition on the premise that the time when T succeeded to the possession of the network S by inheritance by agreement division cannot be the starting point of the prescriptive acquisition period. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the starting point of

3. Conclusion.