1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The basic fact is that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Da Apartment apartment (E) Dong 104 on December 22, 1982, and the Defendant acquired the ownership of the land of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 471.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) adjacent to the said apartment site on October 20, 197. The instant land was included in the land of 37 lots before replotting, which is the original apartment construction site. The fact that the instant land was included in the land of 37 lots before replotting, which is the land for the said apartment building site, was not disputed between the parties, or that the division division is completed on April 22, 1992, and it is recognized by considering the overall purport of arguments as a whole in each of subparagraphs 1 through 7 (including the provisional number).

2. Determination

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The apartment of the main assertion was planned as part of the land D and E after replotting including the land in this case at the time of the initial design. The apartment building's sale instruction also consists of the land in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and the land in this case is included in the above 36 parcel. Therefore, the defendant, as the owner of the above apartment construction project, should have transferred the ownership of the above land to the buyer at the time of sale, but the above procedure was not completed. Ultimately, the land in this case is owned by the owner of the above apartment. Accordingly, the plaintiff is practically the owner of the above apartment. Thus, even if the land in this case was not owned by the owner of the above apartment, the plaintiff and the owner of the above apartment in this case had occupied the above land in peace and public performance for 30 years or more as the owner of the above apartment. Thus, the acquisition by prescription was completed.

Therefore, the Defendant’s share of 13.57/47,720 of the Plaintiff’s right to a site among the instant land is based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on December 12, 2002.