1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and counterclaim claims filed in the trial are dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal; and

The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff's assertion on the grounds of claim as to this lawsuit has been in possession of the land in this case for not less than 20 years since the commencement of possession with the knowledge that the part of the land in this case was part of the land owned by the plaintiff at the time of purchase of the land owned by the plaintiff on April 11, 1978. As such, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on April 11, 1998, which was due to the completion of the prescription period for possession acquisition, as of April 11, 1978.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the following facts were established by comprehensively considering the evidence Nos. 3 and the result of the verification by the court of first instance and the purport of the entire pleadings: (i) compared with the stone fence accumulated between the land owned by the defendant and the land owned by the defendant and another land owned by the defendant, which is adjacent to the land owned by the plaintiff, and the land owned by the defendant; and (ii) the stone fence, which is almost parallel with the above stone fence, has played a boundary role from the time when the plaintiff occupied the land owned by the defendant and the land owned by the defendant in this case, with the boundary of the said stone fence as the time when the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land owned by the plaintiff in this case. Thus, the plaintiff occupied the land in this case with the boundary of the said stone fence as the time when the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land in this case.

I would like to say.

Therefore, it is presumed that the Plaintiff possessed the part of the land in this case in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own intent. Thus, the prescription period for acquisition of possession was completed on April 11, 1978, which was 20 years after the date on which the Plaintiff started to occupy the part of the land in this case.

Therefore, the defendant does not have to do so to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances.