1. The Defendants, when permanently residing in the Plaintiff, connect each point of the attached Form Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5, among E large 128 square meters.

1. The determination of the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff is the owner of E large 128 square meters (hereinafter “E land”), and the fact that the Defendants occupied the part 20 square meters in the “bbb” portion (hereinafter “instant land”) connected in sequence with each point of the attached drawing Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 among the said land is not in dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s defense

A. Defendant B’s defense was asserted to the effect that the prescriptive acquisition has been completed, since he and the former occupant owned a G-132 square meters (hereinafter “G-land”) at the time when he and the former occupant were permanently located adjacent to the land E, and the wall was installed. The Defendant B occupied the instant land on the basis of the fence, and the period of possession was for at least 20 years, and the possession was presumed to have been peaceful and publicly performed as his own will.

B. Determination 1) Although the Defendant does not explicitly assert the starting point of the occupancy period, according to the Gap evidence No. 1-2, the fact that F completed the registration of ownership transfer on the G land on December 30, 1987; the heir of F on October 26, 2015; the fact that F completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale; and on June 29, 2016, the Defendants’ completion of the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale. Even if the acquisition by possession of the instant land, such as G land, was completed on December 31, 2007 after the F completed the registration of ownership transfer, the F or its heir and the Defendants have the right of claim against the Plaintiff. According to the Gap evidence No. 1-1’s statement, the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged as having completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land on April 20, 201, the Defendants’ assertion that the acquisition by prescription was completed after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff.