1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s acquisition by prescription on November 5, 200 with respect to the Plaintiff’s six square meters prior to Seosan-si, Seosan-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was the owner of Seosan-si, Seosan-si, C, 165 square meters (hereinafter “C land before division”).

Before subdivision, C was divided into three square meters (hereinafter “C land”) and 13 square meters (hereinafter “D land”) on April 19, 1980, and D land was converted into Seosan-gun on October 13, 1980 into Seosan-gun on January 1, 1995.

In each below, it shall be marked as Seogsan City.

The ownership was transferred.

B. Around December 31, 1970, the Plaintiff newly constructed a second floor building on C’s land. A building ledger (Evidence A3) around November 5, 1980 entered the date of permission for extension on February 5, 1980, while the building permit (Evidence A4) written on November 5, 1980.

Plaintiff

In light of the fact that C’s land before the partition, which was owned, was partitioned into C’s land and D’s land after the partition on April 19, 1980, and D’s land was transferred to Seosan-gun on October 13, 1980, it seems that the construction permit was re-issued on November 5, 1980 because the condition of the building site among the existing permit for extension permitted on February 5, 1980, was changed from C before the partition in C, F, G, and B land after the partition.

In addition to C land which is the existing site, F, G, and B was added to the site of F, G, and B and the permission for the extension of the existing two-story building into three floors was obtained, and the completion inspection of the extension work was completed on November 6, 1981 and the extension was registered in the building ledger.

(G), F, and B were additionally registered as a site. [Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-4, 11 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the claim for ownership transfer registration due to the completion of prescription

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession, the plaintiff obtained permission to construct (extension) the existing two-story buildings on land C, F, G, and B around November 5, 1980 for the extension of the existing three-story buildings on land C, F, G, and B around that time, and completed the extension work on November 6, 1981. The plaintiff occupied the land B on November 5, 1980.