1. The defendant is based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription on March 25, 2008 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 29, 1979, the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) was completed in the name of the defendant.

B. On March 2, 198, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with B to purchase the instant apartment at KRW 13.5 million, and after completing the move-in report on the instant apartment on March 25, 198, the Plaintiff occupied and resided until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the relevant legal doctrine, whether the possessor’s possession of real estate is the possession with the intention of possession or with the intention of possession without the intention of possession should not be determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by all circumstances related to the nature of the source of title or the possession, which caused the acquisition of the possession, be determined externally and objectively.

However, if the nature of possessory right is not clear, it is presumed that the possessor had possession with his intention to own pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the possessor does not have the responsibility to prove his/her possession with the nature of the possessory right, and the possessor bears the burden of proving the possession with respect to the possessor's possession with no intention to own.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997, etc.). In addition, even if a purchaser of a land acquired possession of the land for the purpose by a sales contract, it constitutes the sale of another’s land and thus it is impossible for the purchaser to acquire ownership immediately thereafter, it cannot be readily concluded that the purchaser obtained possession on the basis of the title that the purchaser did not have the intent to own the possessor’s right in view of the nature of the possessor’s right, and there are other special circumstances such as purchase with the knowledge that the seller has no right to dispose