1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) the statements or images of evidence A 1 to 5; (c) the witness D’s testimony; and (d) the result of the on-site inspection by this court; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of

On November 6, 1997, the Defendant acquired ownership on the ground of the division of inherited property on November 6, 1997.

B. On August 27, 1981, F, a punishment of the Plaintiff, completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 27, 1981 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership. After purchasing this on November 27, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased it on November 27, 2002 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 2, 2002.

C. Of the instant land, the portion of 47 square meters in the ship that connects each point of 9 through 14, and 9 of the annexed drawings (hereinafter “instant land portion”) among the land in this case is clearly divided into approximately 2 meters high compared to the remainder by breakinging soil, and is being used as a fruit dys or crop arable with the instant E land for not less than 20 years from the Plaintiff’s father G and F to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff acquired the prescription by occupying the land portion of this case for not less than 20 years, including F’s possession, all of which is the former occupant.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription on the instant land portion to the plaintiff.

3. The judgment of the defendant's assertion is that since the defendant, at the time of new construction of housing on the H land adjacent to the land of this case, F was aware that the part of the land of this case was not owned by F at that time, and F was the illegal occupant of the land of this case, and the plaintiff who succeeded to the occupation of the land of this case is also malicious.