1. The Defendant shall in turn order the respective points indicated in the attached Form 12, 13, 14, 15, and 12 among the land size of 291 square meters in Gangseo-si, Gangseo-si.

In full view of the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 and as a result of the commission of surveying and appraisal on the Korea Land Information Corporation in this court, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 291m2 (hereinafter "the instant land") on November 27, 2017, with the overall purport of the pleadings. Of the instant land, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Defendant installed facilities, such as containers, and occupied them on the part of 30m2 of the portion of "B" and on the part of "30m30m2 of the instant land, the Defendant is obligated to remove the aforementioned facilities, such as containers, and deliver the relevant land, unless the Defendant has a legitimate title to possess a part of the instant land.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the prescriptive acquisition has been completed by public performance and peaceful possession of the above land portion with the intention of ownership for not less than 20 years, according to each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, it can be recognized that E completed the registration of preservation of ownership on June 29, 197 with respect to a wooden house constructed around June 1968 on the land adjacent to the instant land, and that the Defendant inherited the above house on January 2, 1992, and that the Defendant resided in the said house from April 1, 1969 to occupy it.

However, even if the acquisition by prescription for real estate was completed, if the transfer registration for ownership of the real estate has been completed with a third party with respect to the real estate without registration, the possessor cannot oppose the third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45402, Jul. 10, 1998). Even if the acquisition by prescription has been completed due to the possession by E or the defendant for twenty (20) years from each of the above dates, as seen earlier, even if the acquisition by prescription was completed due to the possession by the intention of ownership, the Plaintiff who acquired the ownership of the land of this case on Nov. 27, 2017 cannot assert the completion of the acquisition by prescription. Thus, the Defendant’

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified.