1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, among the land areas of 6,347 square meters in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 1970, the registration of ownership preservation was completed on August 14, 1970 with respect to the land of 6,347 square meters in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-do (hereinafter “instant land”). On May 17, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division under the name of the Defendant.

B. Meanwhile, from around 1977 to 1980, the Plaintiff’s mother from around 1980 to 2005, and from around 2005 to around 2005, the Plaintiff occupied the part of 1,322 square meters in the ship connecting each of the instant land in sequence with each of the points of 9, 10, 11, 12, 22, 21, 20, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 15, and 9 of the attached drawings among the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and 6 (including each number), witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s father purchased the land in this case from D in around 1977, and cultivated the meat, etc. on the said land, and around 1980, the Plaintiff’s mother donated the said land to the Plaintiff around 200. The Plaintiff’s mother, while growing the meat, etc. on the said land, donated the said land to the Plaintiff around 205, and from that time, the Plaintiff occupied the said land.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on May 30, 2017, when 20 years have elapsed from May 30, 1997, “the time when the Plaintiff’s mother commences possession” with respect to the land in the instant dispute, to the Plaintiff.

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her owner’s intention. Therefore, in cases where the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her intention. Rather, he/she denies the establishment of the prescriptive acquisition by asserting that the possessor has no intention to own it.