기타(금전)
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated the attached Table 18 to 21, and 18, among the land size of 595 square meters in Osan-si Co., Ltd. to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be examined, but the counterclaim for convenience shall be judged first.
1. Basic facts
A. The C Dae-si, Osan-si (hereinafter “instant site”) is owned by the Defendant, and the D large 212 square meters, which is its neighboring site, is owned by the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff owns a brick house and cement brick structure structure on the ground of D major 212 square meters. Each of the Plaintiff’s buildings owned a brick house with D major 212 square meters away from D major 212 square meters, and each of the instant buildings owned by the Defendant with an appraisal map of 18 to 21, and 18 square meters attached to the instant land owned by the Defendant, and with an appraisal map of 9.2 square meters attached to 30,10,22, and 30 square meters attached to the cement brick structure with an appraisal map of 30,10,10,22, or 30 square meters, and with an appraisal map of 1,19, 11 through 17, 8, 27, 28, 9, 30, 210, 221, 218, and 29.3 square meters of each of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, 5, and 6 (including each number), the result of the commission of survey and appraisal to appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of counterclaim, the plaintiff has a duty to remove, pursuant to the defendant's claim for exclusion of interference based on the ownership, a brickd house on the ground, and a cement brickd building on the ground part of "divid", and to deliver the above "b" part to the defendant, unless there are special circumstances.
3. The plaintiff's assertion about the counterclaim and the judgment on the cause of the principal lawsuit
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion recognized the part of the land of the Defendant and the other party on October 28, 1991, which was at the time of donation of D large 212 square meters from his parents, and arranged the boundary. The Plaintiff, at the latest, occupied the land of the other party on or after October 28, 1991, up to 20 years since the date of the donation, was completed, and thus, the Defendant’s counterclaim is unfair, and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim is rather unfair.