1. The Defendant’s ground for the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on February 5, 1967 with respect to the Plaintiff’s 2,360 square meters prior to Gyeongbuk-gun C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an unincorporated association for the sake of the common convenience and common welfare of residents residing in Gyeongbuk-gun A.

B. Around May 25, 1913, D, the Defendant’s additional father, was found to have been 2,360 square meters prior to Gyeongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnambuk-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. From February 5, 1947, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land, and had residents cultivate the said land, and received tax revenue and received a sacrife of the village.

On November 27, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on the instant land by the Daegu District Court No. 5998, Nov. 27, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4, and 6 evidence (including additional number), the witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). According to the above facts of recognition, the possessor occupied the land of this case in peace and public performance for twenty years from February 5, 1967 with the starting point of February 5, 1947 alleged by the Plaintiff as the point of time of possession of the land of this case, and thereby, the period of prescription for the possession of the land of this case has expired.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on February 5, 1967 to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The assertion D did not sell or donate the instant land to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have occupied the instant land as its owner’s intention by failing to complete registration under the Act on Special Measures for the instant land.

Therefore, the prescription of possession on the land of this case was not completed.

B. In the judgment of the statute of limitations on the acquisition of real estate, whether the possessor is the possession with intention to own or with intention to own is determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor.