1. Of Jeju-si 645 square meters prior to D, each point indicated in the separate sheet No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 1, 18, 17, 16, 15, and 11 are linked in sequence.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 18, 1973, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Dong G with respect to the area of 2,126 square meters in Jeju-si, E, and on April 25, 1995, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant B, a son as a result of inheritance by a consultation division.

From the above E land on May 23, 2008, the area of 679 square meters prior to D was divided, and again, the area of 34 square meters prior to H on October 6, 201 was divided from the said D land.

(hereinafter referred to as the “D land”) 645 square meters remaining after the division as above.

On February 14, 1980, Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase on March 1, 1973 with regard to 102 square meters (hereinafter “I land”). At the time of August 22, 1985, Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer to J, a person holding the provisional attachment of the above land.

C. After January 22, 198, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of K, which is the spouse of Defendant C, on the 20th of the same month. On August 2, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 6, 2012 to Defendant C on the 20th of the same month. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 6, 2012 to Defendant C on the 6th of the same month, and on February 6, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

5. The registration of transfer of ownership has been completed on the grounds of donation;

Defendant C resided along with K, etc. in a house constructed on the ground of land, and installed and used a customary toilet (hereinafter “instant building”) on the part 37 square meters in the attached Form No. 1 among D land adjacent to I’s land (hereinafter “instant land”) around 1976.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 (including additional evidence, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the relevant legal doctrine and Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to possess the object as his/her own intent. As such, in cases where the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention, and rather, he/she does