1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 17, 1967, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant’s father D on February 17, 1967 with respect to the 2,390 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”). On March 4, 1983, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 5, 1969.

B. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 13, 1979 with respect to the land of 2,846 square meters adjacent to the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

(Seely see the results of surveying the current status of the land).

The portion (B) of the attached Table 1, 12, 11, 10, and 1 among the Defendant’s land, which connects each point of the attached Table 1, 12, 11, 10, and 1, is used as part of the passage way leading to the Plaintiff’s land, which is the master land, and at the same time, the part from the Defendant’s land to the contribution

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and 8, and the purport of the whole argument

A. The Plaintiff and F, on July 19, 1970, purchased the instant land from G on behalf of the Defendant’s 's 's 15,000 won. Since F transferred the right to claim ownership transfer registration to the Plaintiff, the Defendant, who is the inheritor of D, is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant land on July 19, 1970.

B. Since the purchase of the instant land from D on July 19, 1970, the Plaintiff claimed the acquisition by prescription for possession has been packaging and installing a stone fence on the boundary, and has occupied it in peace and openly and openly as its owner. Thus, the acquisition by prescription for possession was completed on March 4, 2003 after the lapse of 20 years from the date the Defendant acquired the ownership.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of sale is insufficient to recognize that D sold the instant land of this case between the Plaintiff and F solely with the statement of Gap’s evidence No. 6. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this part is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on the acquisition by prescription of possession, the part of the instant land is the requirement for the acquisition by prescription of possession.