1. The defendant's acquisition by prescription on January 7, 2007 by possession on the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 5, 1969, Non-Party B purchased three parcels from Non-Party C, 65,000, including the answer, Gangwon-do Seocheon-gun, E (hereinafter “instant land”), and F.

B. The Deceased continued to possess and use the above three parcels including the instant land without being registered. After the Deceased died on September 19, 1970, the Plaintiff, the inheritor of the Deceased, occupied and cultivated the instant land, and allowed Nonparty G to reside without compensation from around 2009 so that he/she can reside without compensation in the said land.

C. On August 5, 1985, the Plaintiff sold the answer land in the Y to the non-party H, and the remaining answer land and E (the instant land) filed an application for the ownership restoration registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Restoration and Preservation of Undeveloped Land within D/L area (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), and the non-party 1 filed an objection to the instant land and completed the ownership transfer registration in the future only for the said D/L land.

As to the land of this case, registration of preservation of ownership has been completed in the future of the defendant on the ground that it is a non-owned land on January 7, 1997.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 16-2, Evidence Nos. 2 through 5, the appraisal result by the appraiserJ, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the deceased and the plaintiff have continuously occupied the land of this case since 1969 as the deceased's own will until then, and the defendant has occupied the land of this case for more than 20 years since January 7, 1997, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the future. Thus, it is determined that the prescriptive prescription was completed on January 7, 2007, because the evidence No. 1 was forged, but according to the result of the appraiser J's appraisal, the sales contract of the evidence No. 1 was prepared on around 1969, so the defendant's assertion is not accepted.