1. The plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) indicates to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) the attached Form 7, 8, 9, 10, 7 of the Busan Jung-gu C site.

We examine both the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is the owner of the Busan Jung-gu C site (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is the owner of the adjacent Busan Jung-gu D site and the building on the ground (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. The Defendant’s building intrudes on the part of “A” which connects the Plaintiff’s land to each point of Annex 7, 8, 9, 10, and 7 in sequence, and is identical from around 1957 to the present part.

C. The defendant's building was acquired from the former owner on April 14, 1987, and the defendant acquired it on November 6, 1996.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the principal lawsuit and the Defendant’s building occupied the Plaintiff’s site without permission. As such, the Plaintiff sought to remove the relevant part, deliver the site portion, and pay an amount of money equivalent to unjust enrichment.

On the other hand, the defendant has acquired the prescription as to the part of the infringement of this case as a counterclaim, and thus, the defendant seeks implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer.

It is presumed that the possessor of scambling is in good faith, peace, and public performance possession with his own will (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), and in the commencement of possession by purchasing or acquiring the site together with the above ground buildings, even if the purchaser believed and occupied part of the adjoining land as belonging to the site he purchased or acquired as a result of mistake because the purchaser does not accurately check the boundary line on the cadastral side with the adjoining land and does not regard it, so long as he actually occupies part of the adjoining land, possession of the adjoining land shall also be deemed to have

Supreme Court Decision 209No. 1000 Decided December 10, 2009