1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of this court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion F, E, and the Plaintiff did not accurately verify the boundary line between B and C, a neighboring land, in the process of owning and occupying D forest and land. As such, the part of possession of each of the above lands is believed to belong to D forest due to mistake. The part of occupation of forest and land B was installed by the Plaintiff, etc., and the part of occupation of land C was occupied indirectly by having the Plaintiff, etc. construct a new house and let G and H use the land without compensation.

As a result, the acquisition by prescription on October 30, 201, after the lapse of 20 years from October 30, 1981, which succeeded to D forest land from E, was completed, with respect to the portion of possession of each of the above lands. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the portion of possession of each of the above lands to the plaintiff.

B. First of all, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff’s acquisition by prescription against the forest land B was completed, the fact that B forest land adjoins to D forest land may be acknowledged. However, in light of the fact that the part of the forest land B is a forest land of 187 square meters in a rectangular type, and that the boundary with D forest cannot be deemed particularly ambiguous, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff occupied the forest land B as the owner’s intent to believe that the part of the forest land occupied was included in D forest due to mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Next, as to whether the prescription period for acquiring the Plaintiff’s possession of land C has expired, the fact that F, around 1950, newly built a house and resided in G while residing in H is as seen earlier. As such, H owned a house and owned the land occupied part of C.