1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), which was owned by the Plaintiff, the “Provisional Registration of Claim for Transfer of the entire D Shares” (hereinafter “Provisional Registration”) based on the trade reservation on August 12, 1978 by the Gwangju District Court Decision No. 52589, 52590, and No. 52590, August 11, 1978, as to the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), was completed on March 6, 1980 on the basis of the said provisional registration as follows: (a) the provisional Registration No. 7849, 7850, which was received on March 6, 1980; and (b) the Defendant was received on June 21, 1993.

5.18. The transfer registration for ownership was made on the ground of sale.

B. From July 1964, the Plaintiff had been residing in the real estate stated in the attached list No. 2 to the present.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-4, Evidence No. 3-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of assertion and judgment, the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate for at least 20 years from June 21, 1993, when the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s possession is presumed to have been carried out in peace and public performance with the intent to own the real estate in accordance with Article 197(1) of the Civil Act.

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant real estate constitutes the possession of a third party, and thus, did not meet the requirements for prescriptive acquisition.

In the prescription period for the acquisition of real property by prescription, whether or not the possessor's possession is the possession with the intention of possession or with the intention of possession without the intention of possession should not be determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that caused the acquisition of possession or all circumstances related to the possession, it should be determined externally and objectively.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 of Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, and 1-2, the plaintiff shall pay C 5,820,000 won to C until September 30, 1979 in the case of the registration of real estate ownership transfer against the plaintiff on July 24, 1979.