1. The Defendants: (a) on May 15, 2013, with respect to the final inheritance shares indicated in the separate sheet among the 1,091 square meters in netcheon-si M.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 11, 1993, N sold to the Plaintiff a P field 2,369 square meters, Q field 779 square meters, which was located in the name of his father at the time of the Plaintiff on May 11, 1993, P field 2,369 square meters and Q field 779 square meters. As to each of the above land, N completed the registration of ownership transfer due to inheritance by consultation division under its own name on October 4, 1996, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on January 24, 1997.

(However, the reason for registration was the sale of December 27, 1996.(B).

The instant land is still registered in the name of the saidO, which is linked to the said P and Q each land (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. As the above N and Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and thereafter N have died on September 9, 2003 on October 20, 1989, the aboveO jointly inherited the property, such as I, J, K, K, and L’s final inheritance shares for the same reasons as the shares of inheritance written in the separate sheet.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 5-1 to 5-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On May 15, 1993, the Plaintiff continuously occupied the instant land from the network N for a period exceeding 20 years, and managed it by planting lost trees. As such, the Plaintiff sought from the networkO to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the prescriptive prescription against the Defendants who jointly succeed to the instant land. As to this, the Defendants did not sell the instant land to the Plaintiff without selling it to another person. Thus, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land is merely an exclusive possession (or bad faithless illegal possession).

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied the article as his/her own intention. Therefore, if the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition, he/she shall prove his/her own intention.