1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 21, 1979, the Plaintiff’s father-D purchased the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E large 238 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 22, 1979. The Plaintiff’s father-D newly constructed a building of 107.1 square meters of underground floors, the first floor, and the second floor on the said land (hereinafter “instant 1 building”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 8, 191 after obtaining approval for use on December 30, 199.

B. On July 30, 1996, the Defendant purchased a single-story house, warehouse, and 103.4 square meters of a single-story house and a single-story 17.98 square meters of a single-story 17.98 square meters of a single-story (hereinafter “the second building of this case”) constructed on the land of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the second land of this case”) and completed each registration of ownership transfer on August 22, 1996.

C. D died on April 2010, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the land and buildings of this case No. 1.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 in each of 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) is the boundary of the land No. 1 and No. 2, and the line connecting each point in order of 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 3 from around December 30, 1989, which was newly constructed the building No. 1 and approved for use of the building No. 24m2 (hereinafter "the land No. 2 of this case") with the order of each point of 3 to 12, 15, 16, 17, and 3 among the land No. 2 of this case, it was known that the land No. 2 of this case was included in the land No. 1 of this case, and it was jointly and openly occupied as the owner's intent, and on December 29, 2009, it acquired the ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the prescription period.

However, since the Plaintiff succeeded to the possession of the land and building No. 1 in this case by inheritance from D, the Defendant’s possession of the land in this case was based on the completion of the prescription period for acquisition of possession as to the part of the land in this case.