건물철거 및 토지인도 등
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the Defendant-Counterclaim Claim filed in the trial are dismissed.
2...
1. The grounds for this part of the judgment of the court concerning the grounds for the main claim are stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Judgment on the defendant's defense and the ground for counterclaim
A. On January 25, 1983, the Defendant’s side of the defense and argument purchased F. F. 349 square meters in order to purchase the land of the F. 349 square meters in order to purchase, within the boundary area, the part of the attached map No. 2 (b) in order to purchase the land of this case (hereinafter “the part of the land in dispute of this case”) and installed the warehouse of this case on the ground, and extended the warehouse of this case within the boundary area of 1996. The Defendant occupied the part of the land in dispute of this case by the intention of ownership for twenty (20) years and acquired the prescription of possession on January 25, 200, and the network succeeded to the possession of the land in this case after the Defendant died on January 3, 2014 through the agreement on the division of inherited property.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of the warehouse of this case and delivery of the part of the land in dispute of this case is without merit. Rather, the Plaintiff is obliged to perform the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of completion of prescription for possession of the land in dispute of this case to the Defendant.
B. The Defendant purchased the part of the instant dispute land, including the part of the instant land at the time when the Defendant’s side E purchased the FF large 349 square meters on January 25, 1983, on the basis of the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the entries and videos (including the number of pages) of the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the result of the on-site inspection by this court.
It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the part of the land in this case was continuously occupied for 20 years from that time at the time of the purchase of the warehouse, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant's defense of the prescription by possession is without merit.
Therefore, the counterclaim claim, which is premised on the completion of the prescription period for acquiring possession of the network E, cannot be accepted for the same reason.