A. On August 10, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased, from the Defendant, C (Defendant’s wife), and D (Defendant’s wife), E, F, and buildings on both land and water (hereinafter “instant housing”), and a number of lots of land and buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”), including the instant housing, in total, KRW 2.5 billion.5 billion.

(2) After May 2005, the Plaintiff donated the instant house to G, a son, around May 2005.

B. Since the time when the instant sales contract was concluded, the instant housing was located across the boundary of H and I land adjacent to the neighboring land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”) and was installed with pentices. Of the instant adjacent land, the part on the inner part of the instant adjacent land (hereinafter “instant affected part”) was used as the maximum number of the instant housing units.

C. On November 2010, J et al., the owner of the adjoining land of the instant case filed a lawsuit against G seeking removal of the pents, etc. and delivery of the part of the instant bedrooms. As to this, G filed a counterclaim seeking implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the part of the instant bedrooms on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations for possession.

(No. 2010da47840, 53470, hereinafter the above case is referred to as “previous lawsuit”). D.

In the previous lawsuit, G argued to the effect that “The Defendant’s possession and the possession of the Plaintiff or G succeeded to the instant part of the land in E, which is the Defendant’s ownership, are the possession of the land in question, because it was agreed to exchange the part not the site of the instant land (86 square meters out of the fences) and the part of the instant part of the instant intrusion (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement”).”

On January 8, 2013, the appellate court of the previous lawsuit accepted the claim of the principal lawsuit by J, etc. on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the exchange agreement of this case and set the counterclaim by G.