1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasons for the judgment with regard to this part of recognized facts are as stated in the corresponding column for reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s prior defense against the principal lawsuit is unlawful by filing only one of the co-owners against the Defendant, even though the Defendant and H should be the co-defendant, since the Defendant shares 614m2, which is linked to the part of the instant lawsuit in possession of the Defendant and H.

On the other hand, since the lawsuit in this case is not seeking the delivery of the above F land, the defendant's assertion is without merit, and even if the defendant's assertion is jointly owned with H, the purification tank, etc. which intrudes the plaintiff's land as part of the above building, is jointly owned with H. Thus, even if the removal of the above purification tank and the delivery lawsuit on the land owned by the plaintiff is included in the purport of indispensable co-litigation, the above purification tank is owned by the defendant as seen earlier, and thus, the defendant's assertion on a different premise is rejected.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the principal claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the storage, warehouse, and septic tanks on the ground of the possession of the land of this case to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land of this case, and deliver the occupied portion of this case to the plaintiff, unless there

3. Determination on the defendant's acquisition by prescription, completion defense, and counterclaim

A. Since D, the former owner of the building site of this case, along with I around 1992, constructed a house on the J-owned land along with I, and installed a stable, warehouse, and septic tank in the occupied part of this case, at the latest, occupied the occupied part of this case from September 1, 1994, which completed the registration of ownership transfer of 1/2 shares in relation to E and F land. Since the Defendant acquired the ownership of the building site of this case and the premises of this case on September 27, 2012, it was a stable, warehouse, and septic tank.