1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 10, 9, among the land size of 236.9 square meters in Daejeon Tae-gu, Daejeon, the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 1995, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon District C large 236.9 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). On November 30, 1988, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon District D large 256.4 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. Around July 2015, the Defendant removed the existing stone embankments located on the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land and constructed a new stone shed. At present, the Defendant, in sequence, connects the respective points of the Plaintiff’s land with the indication 1, 2, 10, 9, 8, 7, and 1 of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 10, 8, 7, and 1 of the land (hereinafter “the part of the instant flood”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 through 3, the result of the measurement and appraisal commissioned to the Daejeon Vice Governor of the Daejeon National Land Information Corporation in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the principal lawsuit, the defendant is obligated to remove tins constructed on the ground of the part on the ground of the instant crime and deliver the part on the instant crime to the plaintiff seeking the removal and return of interference based on ownership.

3. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim and the defense against the main claim

A. On April 1976, E, the former owner of the Defendant’s land, (a) installed tin axiss and fences around the boundary of the Defendant’s land. On November 30, 1980, the Defendant purchased the Defendant’s land from E on November 30, 1980, and installed tinstones at the same location as the existing tin shed around July 2015.

B) From November 30, 1988 to whom the Defendant transferred the Defendant’s land from F, the Defendant occupied the part of the instant intrusion with the intention of possession for twenty (20) years from the previous stone shed, and the acquisition by prescription was completed on December 1, 2008 with respect to the part of the instant intrusion on December 1, 2008. C) Accordingly, the Defendant not only has a legitimate right to possess the part of the instant intrusion but also the Plaintiff.