1. The Defendant shall in the order of 1,5,6,7,8, and 1 of the attached reference to the Plaintiff among the 168 square meters in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 168 square meters.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11 (including each number), the defendant's spouse D completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 8, 198 with respect to the land and its ground buildings in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, and the defendant died and the defendant seems to be the only inheritor of the deceased on February 11, 2015 (hereinafter "the defendant's land") and the building on June 30, 2013.

The fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to Eul on June 12, 1985. The plaintiff purchased the above E-Ba-216 square meters adjacent to the defendant's land and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of reinforced concrete building and the third floor neighborhood living facilities and housing (hereinafter "the plaintiff's building"). Among the plaintiff's building, part of fireproof teams, parking lots, etc. was built by intrusion on the defendant's land, and the size and shape of the building are the same as the part of "bridge(5 square meters), "(11 square meters)," "(11 square meters in parking lots)" (hereinafter referred to as "the part of entrance columns of parking lots") and "4" (hereinafter referred to as "the land dispute of this case"), and there is no counter-proof proof.

B. Article 245(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A person who possesses real estate in peace and openly with the intention to own it for twenty years shall acquire its ownership by registering it with the intention to own it,” and Article 197(1) of the Civil Act is presumed to have occupied it in peace and openly with the intention to own it.

The term "" is defined as ".

Therefore, the possessor does not bear the burden of proving that he/she has occupied as his/her own intent when claiming the prescriptive acquisition, and rather, he/she bears the burden of proving that the possessor does not have the intention to own it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da12364, Jul. 10, 2008). According to the above legal principles, according to the health care unit and the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff.