The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At the time of residence, the land indicated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “second-party land”), and the F warehouse site of 1269 square meters (hereinafter “third-party land”) are linked in sequence from the north-dong to the south-west.

B. The first land ownership was transferred from G to H on June 14, 1974.

The third land ownership was transferred from G to I on June 14, 1965, and transferred to J on February 26, 1974.

The defendant acquired the ownership of the second land on February 16, 1976.

C. In the general building ledger, it is entered into a new construction of 26.9 square meters of housing in 1963 on the ground of land in 1963, an extension of 24.2 square meters of housing in 1973, and an extension of 20 square meters of building rooms in 1979.

H died on June 17, 191 from the date of new construction or extension of a house, warehouse, etc. on the land No. 1 and the land No. 2, as stated in the purport of the claim (b) and 2, 293 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Plaintiff succeeded to H.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 14, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s father purchased the Plaintiff’s land Nos. 1 and 3 and commenced possession with the knowledge of the possession of the instant land as a part of the purchase land, and on June 17, 191, the acquisition by prescription was completed as the Plaintiff inherited and continuously occupied until June 17, 201.

B. Since the area of the instant land exceeds considerably the area of the land purchased by H, it constitutes the possession of another owner.

3. A person who intends to purchase an ordinary real estate shall enter into a sales contract after confirming ownership and size by the certified copy of the register, cadastral record, etc. before entering into the sales contract. Thus, if the area of the site subject to sale considerably exceeds the area on the register, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the contracting party was aware of such fact, and that the excess is a sale of the right of occupation and use. Therefore, the possession constitutes a sp

Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83632 Decided October 15, 2009