1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is one of the area indicated in the attached Form 14 square meters among the area of 106 square meters in a previous-nam D ditch, and 161 square meters in a E ditch.

1. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. In fact, the recognition was completed on December 18, 1990 under the name of G, the Plaintiff’s father around May 2006, when the ownership transfer registration was completed on the ground of donation, which was owned by F.

After that, on July 30, 2010, G died, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 24, 2010 in the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of inheritance due to a consultation division.

The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 27, 198 with respect to H site 393 square meters and its ground buildings adjacent to each of the above ditches (hereinafter “instant housing”). Since around that time, the Defendants are co-owners possessing the instant housing (Defendant B 1/3 shares and Defendant C2/3 shares) from that time to that time.

However, part of the wall of the instant house goes beyond the boundary, and the Defendants occupy and use the part of “C” indicated in the attached drawing among the aforementioned D ditches and the part of “Ma” indicated in the attached drawing among the aforementioned E ditch and the part of “Ma” in the attached drawing (hereinafter “the part of the instant crime”) as the housing site.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6-2, the result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Cadastral Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent for the crime of this case according to their shares of co-ownership, barring any special circumstance, inasmuch as they obtain unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and inflict damages on the Plaintiff by occupying and using the affected part of this case.

2. As seen earlier, as to the Defendants’ defense and counterclaim claim, the Defendants purchased the instant house and had occupied the instant part of the instant crime in peace and openly and with intent to own it since May 27, 198 when the registration procedure for ownership transfer was completed. As such, the prescriptive acquisition for the instant part of the crime was completed on May 27, 2008 after the lapse of 20 years thereafter.

The completion of the acquisition by prescription shall be effective.