1. The defendant is based on the completion of the statute of limitations on April 10, 2005 with respect to the E-road 33 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 12, 1965, the netF completed the registration of ownership preservation with respect to the area of G field 2,754 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”).

With respect to the portion of 33 square meters among the lands before the partition, it has been made by around 1986 and land category change, and it became 33 square meters of roads E in Namyang-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

B. On September 26, 1986, the defendant completed the registration of the transfer of ownership of the land of this case on the ground of inheritance due to the division by agreement between the parties on April 3, 1987.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the party's assertion 1) since the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case in peace and public performance from April 10, 1985 to the Defendant as the owner's will to own the land of this case, the prescriptive acquisition of the land of this case was completed on April 10, 2005 after the lapse of 20 years.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on the instant land by the completion of prescription.

2) Since the Defendant did not waive ownership of the land of this case and cultivated crops on the land of this case, the Plaintiff cannot assert the completion of the prescription period.

B. 1) In a case where the nature of possessory right of real estate in the pertinent legal doctrine is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance by his own will pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act.

This presumption is equally applied to cases where the state or local government, which is the managing body of the cadastral record, takes possession of the land, and even if the possessor asserts the title of possession, such as sale or donation, but this is not recognized, the source of right to possession is not recognized unless the burden of proof on the original source of possession is established.