1. The Defendant’s acquisition by prescription on December 18, 2010 on real estate stated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff is based on the completion of acquisition by prescription.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on January 30, 1989 with respect to the 1349 square meters of Seosan-si B, Seosan-si. The Plaintiff was part of the tide embankment installed between B and 1546 square meters of the said land before subdivision.

B. On December 18, 1990, the Plaintiff purchased 1546m2 from Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do prior to the subdivision.

At the time, the Plaintiff cultivated rice after cultivating rice with the knowledge of the boundary of the land as water to the point of view, and the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant land”) did not exist in the public register.

C. On January 30, 1997, the Plaintiff filed an application with the competent court for the change of land indication with the content of dividing the land of 1546 square meters in Seosan-si into 104 square meters in D 104 square meters and 22 square meters in C 502 square meters, and among which C land was delivered to E.

When conducting a cadastral status survey on the neighboring areas of the instant land, Seosan City became aware of the existence of the instant land, and prepared a new registration surveying result map on May 13, 2014, and the Defendant classified the instant land into non-real estate and announced it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the prescription period for the acquisition of possession of the land of this case has expired since December 18, 1990 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant should implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as to the land of this case.

Since the possession of the possessor is presumed to have been carried out in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), it is presumed that the possession of the Plaintiff on the land of this case was carried out in peace and public performance with his own intent.

3. On March 29, 201, the Defendant determined the Defendant’s assertion: (a) sold the land to F on March 29, 2011; and (b) if the seller sells the land to F, it would have known the existence of the land in this case through the official