1. Of the land listed in the attached Table 1 list to the Plaintiff, with respect to Defendant B’s share of 2,904, Defendant C, D, E, and F, respectively.

Basic Facts

On August 3, 1994, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on August 4, 1994 with respect to L on August 3, 1994, adjacent to the land listed in the attached list 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

The instant land was owned by the network M, network N, networkO, and network P (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) and succeeded to the Defendants, etc. in proportion to the shares as shown in attached Table 2.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and 12, the evidence revealed prior to the determination of the grounds for a claim as to the overall purport of the pleadings, as well as the whole purport of the pleadings or video files Nos. 22 through 29, 32, 33, 35, and 36, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case from August 4, 1994, and that the plaintiff's possession is presumed that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case and that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case in a peaceful and public performance with the intention of ownership. As such, the period of prescription for the plaintiff's possession of the land of this case was completed on August 4, 2014 after the lapse of 20 years from

Therefore, the Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the completion of the statute of limitations on their inheritance shares among the land of this case to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

The main point of the argument regarding Defendant B, C, D, E, and F’s assertion was that the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case with bad faith, and thus the presumption of self-ownership was reversed.

Pursuant to the relevant legal principles and Article 197 (1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied as his/her own intention. Therefore, if the possessor claims the acquisition by prescription, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention. Rather, he/she bears the burden of proving that the possessor has no intention to own it. Therefore, in the prescription for the acquisition by prescription for the possession of real estate, the possessor is not the owner's independent possession or the owner