1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. Basic facts

A. In around 1962, the Plaintiff: (a) sold a waterway restoration housing unit D on the ground of 278 square meters in 1962; and (b) paid all the sales price of the said housing around 1988.

B. Meanwhile, on June 2, 1987, the land size of the C Daecheon-si, which is a site for a flood disaster restoration housing, was increased to 345 square meters, and was divided into C large 161 square meters on August 20, 198 (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”), E, and F, respectively.

C. On December 13, 1988, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for the land owned by the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 31, 1989.

In addition, on January 31, 1989, the plaintiff completed registration of preservation of ownership with respect to the above flood disaster restoration house (the cement set up block structure and the 26.45 square meters floor house).

On April 17, 1995, the Plaintiff extended the area of 47.3 square meters in the Switzerland’s office (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) to the flood disaster restoration house.

E. The instant building owned by the Plaintiff is constructed over ten square meters on board each point of which is indicated in the separate sheet No. 6, 3, 9, 10, and 6, among the land owned by the Plaintiff and the land owned by the Defendant and the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5 (including branch numbers where there are branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 10, the result of the on-site inspection by the court of first instance, the result of the request for surveying appraisal by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserted that the acquisition by prescription was completed on January 30, 2009, since January 31, 1989, which completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land owned by the plaintiff, since the part of the dispute of this case was occupied.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff had occupied the part of the dispute of this case after replacing the roof of the building of this case to a yellow panel in 2007.

(b) judgment;