1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The issue of this case and the citing the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the acquisition by prescription is completed with respect to the land in the instant dispute.

B. On July 13, 2013, the first instance court determined that the network D acquired the right to claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground of completion of the statute of limitations for possession on the land in the instant dispute, and that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties inherited it, the Defendant was obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on July 13, 2013 with respect to each of the 1/4 shares of the land in the instant dispute to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the possession of the networkD lost the peace of possession.

C. Furthermore, the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied the article on his/her own will (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). Therefore, in cases where the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition, he/she is not liable to prove his/her own intention, and the possessor bears the burden of proof to a person who denies the establishment of the prescriptive acquisition by asserting that the possessor has no intention

According to the evidence No. 9, the registration of ownership preservation on the land of this case was completed, and it is recognized that the F, who completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of G, decided on October 11, 2004, to sell only the remaining part of the land of this case to G. The mere fact that the Plaintiff did not submit a clear document proving that he purchased the land of this case, alone, cannot be said to be the presumption of possession possession.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the "Plaintiff" as the "party to the first instance" as the "party to the first instance."