1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. In full view of the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4-1, 2, and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul evidence No. 2, the video of the court of first instance, and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the commission of the survey and appraisal to the vice governor of the Seoul Regional Headquarters of the Seoul Regional Headquarters of the Seoul Regional Headquarters of the Seoul Regional Headquarters of the court of first instance on May 13, 1981, the plaintiff purchased Jongno-gu Seoul International Complex 62.8 square meters and its ground wood and its ground apex 9 square meters on May 14, 1981, and owned the building of this case from that time after completing the registration of ownership transfer on May 14, 1981, and thereafter, the building of this case is owned by the building of this case from that time. The building of this case is connected with each of the above I land and the road No. 21,223,24,25,16, and 97.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff owned the building of this case for a period of more than 20 years from May 14, 1981, and occupied the part of the crime of this case, and the possessor is presumed to have occupied the part of the crime of this case in peace and public performance (Article 197 of the Civil Act). Thus, the plaintiff acquired by prescription the part of the crime of this case on May 15, 2001, which became 20 years after the commencement of possession.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on May 15, 2001 with respect to the part of the instant crime to the Plaintiff on the ground that the prescriptive acquisition has been completed.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff acquired the building of this case, he did not extend or rebuild the building of this case without permission and possessed the part of this case as the site of the building of this case, he did not possess it independently.

In full view of the contents or images of evidence Nos. 2 and 4 as a whole, the building register of the instant building stated as a wood in the building register, while the wall part of the instant building is actually a wall.