1. The Defendant, on April 4, 2017, based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription on the land of 335 square meters in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s statements and arguments Nos. 1, 3 through 5, and 8 (including household numbers), the Plaintiff’s father occupied indirectly, such as: (a) from 1997 to 11, 2017, the Plaintiff’s father, Mad-gun, Gojin-gun, Gojin-gun (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) the Defendant’s father’s father’s netF owned the instant land from November 6, 1975; and (c) the Defendant’s death on August 25, 2017, completed the registration of ownership transfer by reason of inheritance by consultation division on March 5, 199; and (c) the Plaintiff, a deceased inheritor, inherited the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant land solely by agreement on division of inherited property.

According to the above facts, the network D has occupied the land of this case for not less than 20 years, and its possession is presumed to have been in peace and public performance with the intention to own it in accordance with Article 197(1) of the Civil Act.

In addition, since the registration titleholder is substantially the same during the period of prescriptive acquisition, the plaintiff can regard the time of voluntary commencement after the former possessor begins possession as the starting point.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on April 4, 2017, which was claimed by the Plaintiff as the starting point of reckoning the acquisition of the instant land from April 4, 1997 to April 4, 2017.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the completion of the prescriptive acquisition by indirect possession cannot be recognized, and even if the possession of the network D is recognized, it constitutes the possession of the owner.

However, in the prescription period for the acquisition of possession, the possession cannot be deemed to be limited to the direct possession, and there has been no evidence to reverse the presumption of the autonomous possession.

Therefore, all of the defendant's arguments cannot be accepted.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.