1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant is one-halfth of 1,240 square meters prior to Daegu-gun, and one-halfth of 754 square meters, respectively, to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s father is E, and the father of E is I.

The father of the defendant is J, and the father of J is F.

I and F are siblings, and I are F's dynamics.

B. E and F have completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 1, 1927 by purchasing 711 square meters from Daegu-gun G, Daegu-gun, together, one half of each co-ownership share on the 11th day of the same month.

C. On November 26, 2014, 711 square meters prior to Daegu-gun G, via division, land category change, administrative district change, and area-unit conversion, etc., H ditch 357 square meters, C previous 1,240 square meters (hereinafter “C”) and D large 754 square meters (hereinafter “D land”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land” in total, d.

Since 1950, a house (hereinafter “instant house”) has been constructed on the ground of land D, and registration of preservation of ownership has not been made.

E. On December 24, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance by agreement and division dated December 23, 1941 as to 1/2 of F’s shares out of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness K of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion F sold 1/2 of his share of co-ownership to E, a co-owner of the instant land in order to raise funds by conducting funeral services on a large-scale basis, around 1940.

Since then, E built the instant house on D land in around 1950, and cultivated C land as an orchard while residing therein.

On June 8, 1989, the Plaintiff received both donations from E and the instant land and housing immediately before the death of E, and thereafter occupied and managed them from around that time.

Therefore, the plaintiff's possession of the land of this case is based on the completion of the prescription period for acquisition of possession of the land of this case on the ground that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case in a peaceful and public manner for twenty years from June 9, 1989.