1. The Defendants are as of March 18, 2018 with respect to each/3 share of 1/3 of forest E 1,091 square meters in Chungcheongju-si.

Facts of recognition

On April 30, 1979, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to F. 2,010 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) prior to the Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and created a private tree orchard on the Plaintiff’s land, thereby occupying the Plaintiff’s land practically since that time.

On March 19, 198, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of 1/3 shares of E forest land 1,091 square meters (hereinafter “Defendants’ land”).

G land was subject to registration conversion on June 13, 1924 at Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and the Plaintiff’s land was divided on September 20, 1958.

The G land before subdivision was divided into G land and E land around March 24, 1933.

However, in the process of registration conversion as above, the Plaintiff’s land overlaps with the Defendants’ land and as a result, the part of the Plaintiff’s land overlaps with the Defendant’s land as shown in the attached Form No. 1,08 square meters, and if the overlapping part is excluded, the area of the Plaintiff’s land is 9

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap 1-6 (including each number), Gap 7-1, and 7-2, and the fact-finding results and the purport of the whole pleadings of this court.

According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was aware that the Defendants’ land was the Plaintiff’s land and occupied the Defendants’ land in a peaceful and public performance for not less than 20 years, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have acquired the Defendants’ land by prescription around March 18, 2018, which was over twenty years from March 18, 1998 when the Defendants acquired ownership of the Defendants’ land.

(1) The Defendants’ land area is 1,088 square meters and the Defendants’ entire land area accounts for 1,091 square meters. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff occupied the entire Defendants’ land. However, since the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendants’ land were erroneous in the registration conversion, the procedure for boundary correction is conducted with mutual consent of the neighboring landowners, but the Plaintiff’s land is the Defendants’ land.