1. The defendant is based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on April 1, 1977 with respect to the land size of 112 square meters prior to Jeonnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence 1 to 8.

1) D The land described in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On November 22, 1948, the registration of ownership transfer was completed, and D died on January 24, 1974, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 2, 2017, on the ground of inheritance by agreement division. 2) On April 1, 1957, the Plaintiff occupied and cultivated the instant land abutting on E, from that time, while residing in the housing located in the GunF located in the Southern-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul-do, and continuously occupied and cultivated the instant land adjoining to E with the said housing site, and even after E died on October 25, 2013.

B. A person who possesses a real estate in a peaceful and public performance manner for twenty (20) years of determination is presumed to acquire ownership by filing for registration (Article 245(1) of the Civil Act). A possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied the real estate in good faith, peace, and public performance with his/her own intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is presumed to have occupied the real estate in a peaceful and public performance manner for twenty (20) years from April 1, 1957 to April 1, 197. Thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on April 1, 197 with respect to the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not possess the land as owner's intention since he leased and cultivated the land of this case from D.

The evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff occupied and cultivated the instant land as seen earlier by leasing it from D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.