1. The defendant is based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on January 31, 2009, with respect to the land size B, B, 16 square meters in order to the plaintiff.

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim is recognized based on the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant 1 on January 31, 1989, the Plaintiff purchased a lot of land 161 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land 1”) from the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 31, 1989; (b) the Plaintiff, around that time, newly constructed a house (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land 1 and on the land 16 square meters adjacent thereto (hereinafter “the instant land 2”) and occupied and used each of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant building”) on the land 1 and 16 square meters adjacent thereto; or (c) there is no dispute between the parties; and (d) the fact that the Plaintiff occupied and used each

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff purchased the land No. 1 of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer from January 31, 1989 to possessed the part of the land No. 2 of this case, which is the site of the building of this case, and such possession of the plaintiff is presumed to have been carried out in peace with the intention of ownership. Thus, it is presumed that the part of the land No. 2 of this case was acquired by prescription on January 31, 2009, which was 20 years after January 31, 1989.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on January 31, 2009 with respect to the land No. 2 of this case to the Plaintiff.

[Plaintiff shall include the date of commencement of possession in calculating the period of completion of acquisition, but if the date of completion of acquisition is calculated on January 31, 2009, the date of completion of acquisition will be January 31, 2009. Even in cases where the starting point of acquisition differs from the starting point of acquisition, it is not a major fact directly necessary for judgment on legal effect, but an indirect fact, and thus, the court is merely an indirect fact, and thus can recognize the real time of possession through litigation documents without being bound by the parties’ assertion (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da60120, Apr. 15, 1994). Thus, even if the error in the above calculation is revised and recognized on January 31, 2009, contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is against the principle