1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that there exist houses and warehouses stated in the purport of the claim on the ground of the instant land, which is the ownership of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, and the fact that the Defendant occupied the instant building is not a dispute between the parties, or that there is no dispute between the parties, and that the Defendant’s possession of the instant building, based on the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the request for surveying and appraisal as to the Jeju National Land Information Corporation and the branch offices of

2. Summary of both parties' arguments;

A. A. Around 1963, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff’s head of the instant building, and was the Plaintiff’s father and mother, and the Defendant were able to live in the said head of the instant house. The Plaintiff’s father died in 1969.

The plaintiff, after his father died, the first house was reconstructed into the present building, and the father and the defendant were allowed to live temporarily.

Since then, the plaintiff requested the defendant to continue to deliver the building of this case since 2008, but the defendant refused to deliver it.

Accordingly, the transfer of the building of this case is demanded based on ownership.

B. Around 1963, the Defendant’s parent (the Plaintiff’s father and mother) constructed a primary house. At the time, both the construction materials price and the wages of the Defendant were borne by the Defendant’s mother, and in the process, the Plaintiff was merely a part of the human resources.

In other words, the mother of the defendant originally acquired the house.

After that, the mother of the defendant, in 1980, reconstructed the first house into the building of this case. In this case, the plaintiff did not participate in all, and in 192, the defendant remodeled its internal facilities.

The Defendant’s mother died and the instant building was inherited to the Defendant.

In addition, since April 1982, the defendant has occupied the building of this case in peace and openly with the intention to own it until then, the prescriptive acquisition has already been completed.

3...