1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

The Plaintiff is the owner of the building and the building on the land owned by Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”), and the Defendant is the owner of the building and the building on the land owned by the Defendant, the neighboring land, Cand 129 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

Plaintiff

On the land owned by the Plaintiff, there is retail store owned by the Plaintiff, and part of the retail store (hereinafter “instant retail store”) is located on the land owned by the Defendant located on the ground of 5 square meters in part of the ship (hereinafter “instant land”) connected with each point of the attached Form 11, 12, 13, 14, 14, 5, 11, and 11 in sequence among the land owned by the Defendant.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was newly constructed on February 14, 197, and extended on April 15, 1980, and thereafter, E acquired ownership on July 27, 1989 and December 6, 1994 by the Plaintiff.

From December 6, 1994, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the retail store of this case and occupied the land of this case. As such, the statute of limitations for the possession of the land of this case was completed on December 6, 2014 after the lapse of 20 years from that date.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership as to the instant land to the Plaintiff on December 6, 2014 due to the completion of the prescription period for acquisition of ownership by December 6, 201

A. Around November 7, 2014 during the Plaintiff’s possession period, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the defect in the boundary surveying of the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land owned, and around that time, it was revealed that the instant store violated the Plaintiff’s land, and even if it is not recognized as the peace and performance of the Plaintiff’s possession from that time, E acquired the ownership of the instant retail store from July 27, 1989 and occupied the instant land. Since the Plaintiff succeeded to the possession, the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land was completed on July 27, 2009.

Therefore, as to the land of this case to the Plaintiff, the Defendant acquired the prescription of possession on July 27, 2009 by the Plaintiff.