토지인도
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. On June 29, 1995, the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s duty to occupy and deliver the land owned by the Plaintiff was registered for transfer of ownership in its name as to F orchard 40,651 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendants are the owners of the land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land. Defendant C is the owner of the land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land. Defendant C is the duty to deliver each of the above land to the Plaintiff, unless the lawful source of possession right is proven in the attached Form 3, 4, 5, 16 through 20, and 3 (hereinafter “instant B land”), and Defendant E is the duty to deliver each of the above land to the Plaintiff, unless the legitimate source of possession right is proved.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute(Defendant C, E), Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 3, 4, 5, 2, and 3-1, 4, 5, 2, and 3, the result of verification by the court of first instance, the result of appraiser H’s appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the defendants' prescriptive acquisition defense and counterclaim
A. Defendant C’s assertion 1) from March 26, 1990, the above Defendant C did not have a duty to deliver it to the Plaintiff as it occupied and acquired prescription for twenty (20) years in peace and public performance with the intent to own the instant land from March 26, 1990. Rather, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure for the transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on March 26, 2010. Defendant E asserted that the above Defendant E occupied the instant land in peace and public performance with the intent to own the instant land for twenty (20) years from May 31, 1976, and acquired the prescriptive acquisition on May 31, 1996. The above Defendant acquired the right to claim the transfer of ownership from G on July 5, 2005, and thus, the said Defendant did not have a duty to deliver it to the Plaintiff. Rather, the said Defendant’s subrogation on G.