1. The Defendant is based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on June 2, 2016, with respect to the land size of 224 square meters prior to C at the time of influence to the Plaintiff.

1. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff, as to the claim for ownership transfer registration of the land C, occupied the land of 224m2 square meters as the intention to own the land before C during a period of 20 years from June 2, 1996 to June 2, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on June 2, 2016 with respect to the land above C to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the claim for ownership transfer registration of the portion of the D's land on board

A. In around 1967, the Plaintiff’s assertion E purchased a portion of 38 square meters on the ground, which connects each point of 1,15,16,14, and 149 square meters in the attached Form No. 1, 15, 16, and 149 square meters from F, and newly built a house on the ground, and occupied the said portion of the land as the owner’s intent to own the said portion of the land. From the time when E died on June 2, 1996, the Plaintiff solely inherited the land of the said portion of (A) on the part of the said ship and occupied it in peace and public performance with the intent to own it for twenty (20) years from June 2, 2016.

Therefore, on June 2, 2016, the acquisition by prescription of the Plaintiff’s possession on the land in the above section (A) was completed.

(b) If there exists any possession before or after the determination, that possession shall be presumed to have been continued.

(See Article 198 of the Civil Act). First, as to the commencement date of the acquisition by prescription for the possession of the above part of the ship claimed by the plaintiff on June 2, 1996, whether the plaintiff or the deceased E occupied the above part of the ship, each entry in the Health Department, Gap 2, 5, 6, and 13 (including each number), is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to examine the remainder of the issue.

(Colonel, E’s death on June 2, 1996, the Plaintiff or the deceased E’s possession of the above land is deemed to be the possession of the Plaintiff’s land even if it occupied the above part of the land.