2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A. The land of this case is currently owned by the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Defendant occupies both (b) and (c) parts (hereinafter referred to as “the part of this case’s land”) derived from the purport of the claim of this case for not less than 20 years up to the present date is not a dispute between the parties.

나. 원고가 이 사건 토지의 소유권에 기초하여 본소로서 피고를 상대로 이 사건 토지 부분 지상의 건물과 담장 철거 및 이 사건 토지 부분의 인도를 각각 청구하는 이 사건에서, 피고는 이 사건 토지 부분의 매수인(또는 시효취득자)으로서 이를 정당하게 점유하고 있으므로 원고의 이 사건 본소청구가 모두 부당하다고 다투면서, 나아가 반소로서 원고를 상대로 이 사건 토지 부분 중 일부(☞ 16㎡)에 관하여 매매(또는 취득시효 완성)를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구한다.

C. Therefore, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in the part of the plaintiff, Gap 2, 3, Eul 3, and 4 and witness Eul's testimony, on February 15, 1993, the defendant's first-friendly F purchased approximately 21 square meters of surrounding land including 16 square meters in the part of the claim for the counterclaim from the plaintiff on February 15, 1993, and paid the purchase price in full to the plaintiff around that time. After the death of around 200 and the defendant inherited the right to claim for ownership transfer registration by a division among co-inheritors, it can be acknowledged that the defendant, after the death of around 200 and after the death of about 200, the defendant's right to claim ownership transfer registration, etc. was properly occupied on the basis of sale or acquisition of prescription, it cannot be accepted without a further need. Rather, the plaintiff's second claim of this case cannot be accepted without a further review. Rather, the plaintiff's transfer registration procedure was made on February 15, 1993.