1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to the area of 14 square meters in Busan Dong-gu E:

B. Defendant B, C, and D are F. of Busan Dong-gu.

1. On May 31, 1966, G with the fact of recognition: (a) on May 31, 1966, the F-24 square meters in Busan Dong-gu (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) on January 7, 1974, the Defendant Republic of Korea acquired each of the instant land E-14 square meters in Busan Dong-gu (hereinafter “instant land”); and (c) on January 7, 1974, both the instant 1 and 2 were registered to preserve ownership.

The land adjacent to each of the instant cases was owned by the Plaintiff’s husband. On June 1, 1973, the Plaintiff and his children inherited to the Plaintiff and their children on November 21, 1985, and the registration of ownership transfer was made under the Plaintiff’s sole name on the ground of donation on the same day.

On November 3, 1976, Plaintiff I paid the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation in the name of Plaintiff on February 24, 2005 while he owned a building on the land owned by Plaintiff and each adjoining land of this case.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since November 3, 1976, determination I presumed that he/she occupied each of the instant land in a peaceful and performing manner with his/her intent to possess it pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Since it is presumed that the Plaintiff, who succeeded to the possession from I, is also presumed to have occupied the Plaintiff’s independent possession, the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant land by prescription on June 30, 2014, which was the starting point of the possession that was the starting point of the arbitrarily selected possession.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on each of the instant land due to the completion of acquisition by prescription.

The defendant Republic of Korea has proved that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case without permission knowing the fact that there is no legal act or any other legal requirement which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.