1. The Defendant is based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on January 1, 2015, with respect to 531 square meters prior to C before residing in the Plaintiff.

1. The land indicated in paragraph (1) of the specification of the claim (hereinafter “instant land”) was completed with the Plaintiff’s intention from January 1, 1995, by openly occupying it for twenty (20) years from the date of the Plaintiff’s possession.

2. Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. The part dismissing (the part demanding the confirmation of ownership) asserts that the acquisition by prescription for possession of the land of this case was completed, and that the defendant demanded against the defendant to confirm that the land of this case is owned by the plaintiff.

However, in the event the prescription period for the acquisition by possession is completed, the possessor acquires the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer against the owner at the time of the completion of the prescription period (Supreme Court Decision 2008Da71858 Decided December 24, 2009). The right to claim the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition by possession of real estate is the obligatory right.

(2) The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired ownership, which is a real right, even if the Plaintiff had completed the prescription period, as alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff had the right to claim for the transfer of ownership, which is a claim against the owner at the time of the completion of the prescription period, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired ownership, which is a real right.

Therefore, this part of the claim is rejected.