1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties are listed in the separate sheet among the 175 square meters of the 175 square meters of the Gyeong-si Road.

In full view of the facts stated in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 8, 10 through 13 (if the land number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the land of this case was divided into 316 square meters prior to C on March 30, 1963 and 53 square meters prior to D. (hereinafter referred to as "the land prior to the division of this case") and the land of this case was changed into the road on the same day. The plaintiff used the land of this case as a road and occupied it from around that day. On the other hand, Eul completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case on March 11, 1943; Eul's heir died on May 25, 1960; and Eul's heir inherited the land of this case in succession in order and thus, it is recognized that each of the parties to inheritance and the designated parties to each of the instant land were listed.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is presumed that the Plaintiff owned the instant land as its owner’s intention, peace, and openly occupied possession. Thus, after March 30, 1963, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for twenty years from February 18, 1999 to February 18, 2019, which is the starting date of voluntary possession, and the prescriptive acquisition was completed.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants, the owners of the instant land, are obligated to implement each of the registration procedures for ownership transfer based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on February 18, 2019 with respect to each of the final inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet among the instant land in the Plaintiff.

The Defendants’ defenses by the Defendants were forged, and all documents related to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land were forged, and the Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances at the time of the acquisition of the instant land. Therefore, the presumption of possession with autonomy was broken out.

The acquisition procedure of the land for which the State, etc. claims the completion of the acquisition by prescription.