1. The Defendant points out each of the following points on the Plaintiff: (a) No. 15, 16, 17, 18, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the annexed drawings among the land size of the Jeju-si 413 square meters.

In full view of the records in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation and the purport of the entire pleadings in this court, the plaintiff is the owner of the land of Jeju-si, C. 413 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case"), and the part of the land of this case connected with each point of the attached Form Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 in sequence among the land of this case, the building owned by the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") can be recognized as having been occupied by the defendant, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case on the ground of this case and deliver the part of this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion is that since the defendant's whole owner of the building of this case purchased the land of this case Eul in unregistered state, and the house house located on the ground of this case was destroyed due to fire around 1970 and resided in the building of this case from that time. On July 14, 2009, after the defendant donated the building of this case to the defendant, he resided in the building of this case from that of this case to February 4, 2010, and continuously occupied the building of this case until the date of lease to others. The defendant owned the building of this case and occupied the building of this case in peace and public performance for 20 years or more, and the time of arbitrary commencement can be determined as the starting point of time due to the lack of change in the owner of the land of this case. Thus, the prescription of possession of the part of this case of this case was completed on June 30, 2016, the defendant asserts that there is the right to possess the part of this case.

If there is a change in the owner of the relevant real estate during the period of possession, the claimant for the prescriptive acquisition may not assert the completion of prescription on the ground that he/she arbitrarily selects the starting point of counting or occupies it for at least 20 years retroactively, and