1. The Defendant: (a) on May 1, 2015, the acquisition by prescription is based on the completion of acquisition on May 1, 2015 with respect to the area of 1,696 square meters prior to Gyeongnam-gun

1. Basic facts

A. On January 1, 200, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation comprehensively succeeds to the rights and obligations of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation on January 1, 2000. The name was changed to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation on December 29, 2005, and the name was changed to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) again on December 29, 2008 (hereinafter “the comprehensive succession and change of the name”), and the specific name is specifically referred to as “the Plaintiff”, regardless of whether it was before and after the general succession and change of the name.

2) On December 30, 1956, the Plaintiff commenced the construction of a reservoir in one of the Republic of Korea, including the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, and completed the construction of the reservoir in one of the Republic of Korea.

(hereinafter “instant reservoir”). (b)

The previous 1,696 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was owned by K. However, L with respect to the said land on May 1, 1995, the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on July 16, 1984 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on April 20, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The parties asserted that the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, purchased the instant land from K to use it as the instant reservoir site, and received the delivery thereof, and thereafter sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership against the Defendant on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession. 2) The Defendant’s land is cultivated by the Defendant until now since it has been occupied and cultivated by the Defendant, so it does not belong to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the purchase of the instant land is difficult to believe this, and therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff possessed the instant land as its owner.

B. Determination as to the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession of the instant land