1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 22,760,562 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from May 2, 2015 to December 16, 2015.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 1990, the Defendants completed the registration of the transfer of ownership in their names under the name, No. 16482, which was received on July 4, 1990, with respect to one-half shares among D forest land 6,231 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

While Defendant B acquired the shares of Defendant C from Defendant C during the course of the instant lawsuit, this does not affect the instant case since it was after the entry of the provisional disposition order prohibiting the disposal of the Plaintiff’s motion was registered.

B. The Plaintiff, along with the husband’s net E, cultivated and occupied the vegetables, etc. on the instant land from around 1990 to around January 2015. Since June 16, 2003 when the network E died, the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant land to embelle a rice shed in the instant land, or to a third party by leasing the instant land to a third party.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 3 and 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. Both parties’ assertion that around 1990, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession from the Defendants, since the Plaintiff, who purchased the instant land from the Defendants, again donated the instant land from her husband E, and occupied it in a peaceful and public manner for not less than 20 years, and the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s possession constitutes an illegal possession in bad faith.

B. Determination is based on the facts that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for at least 20 years as seen earlier, but it is proved that the occupant occupied the instant land without permission, even though he/she was aware of the existence of a juristic act or any other legal requirements that may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession without permission, barring any special circumstances.