1. The defendant is one of the parts indicated in the attached Form 13, 14, 15, 16, and 13 among the 84m2 in Jung-gu, Seoul.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C on November 30, 1993, completed the registration of ownership transfer for D, 116 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and its ground buildings in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 22, 2002 after being awarded a successful bid at the auction procedure, respectively.

B. On April 29, 1957, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B large scale 84 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

C. The Plaintiff, among the Defendant’s land, occupies the portion of 4.5 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the attached Table 13, 14, 15, 16, and 13, and the portion of 0.2 square meters in the ship connected each point of the attached Table 17, 18, 19, and 17.

(hereinafter the Plaintiff’s land portion owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, each entry in Gap 1 through 12 evidence (including paper numbers), the result of an appraiser E’s summary appraisal, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff's former owner's possession commenced from November 30, 1993, he occupied the land of this case in peace and public performance with his intention to own from November 30, 1993, the acquisition by prescription has been completed.

In regard to this, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s land and the building on its ground through the auction procedure, and that in that process, the building was infringed on the instant land. However, the Defendant asserted that it was the possession of the owner from the time when the Plaintiff commenced possession.

B. The intention of possession, which is the content of possession with intention to hold possession, should be determined depending on the nature of the source of possessory right, but if the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied in peace and performance with intent to own pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the possessor is not actively liable to assert and prove that the source of possessory right is possession with intention to own, and the possessor’