The plaintiff (Counter-Defendant A) indicated in the attached Form No. 5, 6, 9, 10, 10, among the area of 377 square meters in size in the area of 37 square meters in the area of the previous North Korean father-gun.

D Large 377 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “D”) in the area of the Plaintiff’s ownership in the area of the Gu located in the area located in the area located in the area located in the area located in the area located in the area located in the area located in the area located in the area located in the area located in the area located in the area located in the area located in

(A) As indicated in the attached Form No. 1(a) and (b), the warehouse and toilet owned by the Defendant, as indicated in the attached Form No. 1(a) and (b), occupy the Defendant by partially impairing the D land, and as indicated in the attached Form No. 2(b), the Defendant occupies a vinyl house, depreciation tree, and fence owned by the Defendant by impairing the E land.

The above possession status is that the Defendant’s husband’s husband’s net F (Death around 1996) continues from 1970 when purchasing 512 square meters in the former Northern Zone G, the neighboring land. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that such possession status continues from 1970.

D and E land is the spouse of Plaintiff A and the deceased H, the father of Plaintiff B, acquired ownership on May 16, 1995 (D) and May 26, 1999 (E) and respectively inherited to the Plaintiffs.

Even in cases where the preservation of ownership or the transfer of ownership is made in the name of a third party with respect to the real estate between the time the acquisition by prescription for the possession of the real estate is completed and the time the original possessor continues to occupy the real estate and the time the owner changes, even if the time the change is calculated, if the period of possession has passed again, the possessor may claim the completion of the second acquisition by using the time the change in ownership in the future of the third party as the starting point for the new acquisition by prescription.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da15172, 15189 Decided July 16, 2009). If so, as to D land, the acquisition by prescription was completed on May 16, 2015 after 20 years from May 16, 1995 when the net H acquired ownership, and as to E land, the acquisition by prescription was completed on May 26, 2019 after 20 years from May 26, 199 when the net H acquired ownership.

Therefore, the plaintiff A is out of the land D.