1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff, around 1973, purchased the land in this case from the non-party E and died on July 24, 1985 while the non-party D (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") occupied the deceased's intent. Since the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiff succeeded to the possession of the land in this case, the plaintiff cultivated crops while occupying the land in this case, on December 31, 1973, it shall be deemed as the starting date of the acquisition by prescription as of December 31, 1993, and the period of acquisition by prescription was completed on December 31, 1993, since the defendant, the owner of the land in this case's registry, is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the land in this case by prescription acquisition.

The plaintiff is not acknowledged to have occupied all of the land of this case, which includes slope land.

Even if at least a plastic house and farm road are installed and possessed, the acquisition by prescription shall be recognized for the above reasons. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff has a duty to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to this part of the land of this case.

2. Determination:

A. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intent. As such, in cases where the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention, and bears the burden of proving the possessor’s possession without the intention of possession.

And it is not determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by all circumstances related to the nature of the title that caused the acquisition, or the possession.