1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendants are with respect to each of 1/5 shares of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Large Scale 10 square meters.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 20, 1966, H purchased G large 29 square meters (hereinafter “land before division”) from Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 30, 196. H died on November 19, 1997, and received inheritance 1/5 shares of each of the land before division by the Defendants, C, B, and F, a child.

B. The Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government large scale of 10 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was divided into the land before subdivision on January 5, 2018.

C. K newly constructed a three-story building of reinforced concrete structure (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the instant land among the land before Eunpyeong-gu Seoul and the land before subdivision and completed registration of ownership preservation on January 28, 1972.

L/M purchased the instant building from K on May 17, 1984 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 17, 1984, and O/N purchased the instant building from L and M and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 14, 198.

E. The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from O and N and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 26, 2001.

[Recognizing Facts] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the case where the judgment on the primary claim is succeeded in succession, the person who asserts the completion of the acquisition by prescription has the right of choice to assert either only his own possession or both his own possession and the former possessor’s possession. In the case of the former possessor’s possession, it also has the right of choice to assert not only the possession of the former possessor at any stage but also the person who asserts it.

[See, Supreme Court Decision 91Da26577, 26584, Oct. 22, 1991, etc.] Social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da26577, 26584, Oct. 22, 1991). Since buildings cannot exist in terms of social norms, land constituting a site for a

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935 Decided November 13, 2003, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, O and N around October 14, 198, and the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the instant buildings around April 26, 2001.