1. The defendant is based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on December 31, 2003 with respect to the land size of 233 square meters prior to Yangsan-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 1999, the area of 1,996 square meters in Yangsan-si was divided into C, 873 square meters and D land prior to C on July 27, 199, and the area of 873 square meters prior to C was divided into C, 705 square meters and E land prior to C on September 24, 2002, and the area of 705 square meters prior to C was divided into 233 square meters prior to C on October 7, 2013 (hereinafter “instant land”) and 472 square meters prior to F.

B. On May 28, 1980, the Defendant acquired the ownership of C prior to partition of co-owned property on the ground of the partition of co-owned property.

C. The Plaintiff constructed an unauthorized building on a part of land of 873 square meters prior to C before the subdivision in around 1983, and resides therein until now.

Part of the instant land is the site of the said building, and the remainder is the end of the said building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 7, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence 3, 5 and 6, witness G and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) On December 31, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land by prescription at the latest.

B. On May 1908, the Defendant leased the Plaintiff’s father H of the instant land with the word “2 square meters” out of the land.

The plaintiff occupies the land of this case without permission.

B. Around October 20193, the Plaintiff newly constructed a non-authorized building part of C before subdivision, and the part of the instant land was occupied and used as the site of the said building as the end of the said building. The Plaintiff is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intent to own (Article 197 of the Civil Act). According to the aforementioned evidence and the record on the evidence No. 5 and No. 6, a subdivision survey was conducted as to the 705 square meters before C, which is the land before subdivision of the instant land, around October 7, 2013. Around October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff divided the instant land and the instant land owned by the Plaintiff as the site and the F472 square meters before the said building. However, it is insufficient to reverse the presumption by the Plaintiff solely on the basis of the evidence No. 1, No. 1, 2, 2, 4, and 7 evidence No. 1.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s land in this case.