1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant on March 2004 regarding the land indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was omitted by C, and C married with the network D (hereinafter “the network”) and left E, F and the Defendant as their children.

B. In the case of Seopopopo-si G orchard 1,709 square meters and H orchard 1,626 square meters (the land category of August 25, 1994 was changed from “electric field” to “water source,” respectively; hereinafter “G land” and “H land”), the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on March 5, 1974 under the name of the deceased on March 26, 1984. On May 23, 2007, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of donation on March 5, 1990.

C. As to the instant land, the ownership transfer registration was completed from I on December 29, 1989 under the name of the deceased on the 16th day of the same month.

On October 12, 2017, as the deceased died on April 16, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 12, 2017 due to the inheritance due to the consultation division in the name of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 8 (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “In lieu of transferring the ownership registration of G and H land purchased from J on March 26, 1984 to the Deceased, the Deceased agreed with the Deceased by transferring the ownership registration of the instant land purchased from I to the Plaintiff.”

However, as seen below, there is no room to exclude the existence of an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Deceased to exchange the instant land and G and H land, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to view that the existence of such exchange agreement was sufficiently proven.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary argument is without merit.

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied the article as his/her own intent. Therefore, the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition.