1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. As to the land of Sejong Special Self-Governing City, which was originally owned by C, 545 square meters prior to H (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”), D completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 26, 1981 due to sale and purchase as of October 8, 1970, pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094) and D died on June 24, 2003, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 29, 2006 pursuant to the inheritance consultation division agreement.

B. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 7, 1982 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094) on the grounds of sale on January 10, 1973 with respect to the land adjacent to Sejong Special Self-Governing City E-Governing City (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

C. From 1980 to 2012, G, the Plaintiff’s birth, cultivated the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 (including a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion purchased the plaintiff's land on January 10, 1973, and from that time, the plaintiff cultivated the land along with the plaintiff's land and the defendant's land adjacent thereto, and such possession is presumed to have been occupied in peace and openly as the owner's intent. Thus, the plaintiff acquired the defendant's land by prescription around January 10, 1993, and the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the acquisition of the prescription period for possession.

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intent. Therefore, in cases where the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition, he/she is not liable to prove his/her own intention, and the possessor bears the burden of proof to a person who denies the establishment of the prescriptive acquisition by asserting that the possessor has no intention

In addition, the possessor's possession is not the owner's intention or the owner's intention.