1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 198, the Plaintiff purchased three-story buildings (1st floor, 89.46 square meters, 2nd floor, 72.87 square meters, 33.75 square meters in store 33.75 square meters, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on August 23, 198.

B. As a result of the land survey conducted in the relevant case thereafter, it was confirmed that the instant building was built by breaking up not only the land owned by the Plaintiff but also the land owned by the neighboring Defendant, Gyeongbuk-gun B, 18 square meters (hereinafter “B land”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 9 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleading

2. The summary of the claim was completed on August 23, 2008, after 200 years from the date of possession, as the Plaintiff occupied the land B as well as C’s intent to own the land as a building site from August 23, 1998 to the public performance, and as such, the Plaintiff completed the prescriptive acquisition on August 23, 2008.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land B as a result of the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

3. In order to complete the prescription for the acquisition by possession of the land owned by another person, the person must occupy the land in peace and openly for twenty (20) years with the intention to own the land.

The possessor’s possession is presumed to be an autonomous, good faith, peace, and public performance possession, but where it is proved that the possessor has occupied an immovable property owned by another person without permission with knowledge of the absence of legal requirements such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, barring special circumstances, the possessor shall be deemed not to have the intention to reject the ownership of another person and to occupy it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intent to own is broken.

Supreme Court on January 28, 2010