1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) belongs to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) C.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 584 square meters in Sinsi-si, Sinsi-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”), and the Defendant is the owner of DJ 411 square meters in Sinsi-si adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. The Defendant occupies 71m2 in the order of each of the items indicated in the separate drawings among the land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant dispute land”). On the land in the instant dispute, the lower court occupied the portion 71m2 in the area of “varine” connected with each of the items in the order of 1,2, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, and 1. On the other hand, the aforementioned portion of “B” portion of cement brick structure and 4m2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 11, 12, and 12, connected each of the items in the order of 12, 2, 2, 16m2, 2, 16m2, 2, 3, 16m2, 2, 2, 188, 298, 208, 16, 12, 2, 16.

C. The Defendant’s husband E asserted that the instant building and warehouse built on the ground that he purchased the land owned by the Defendant from F on March 5, 1988, on the other hand, the Plaintiff was constructed after the purchase of the Defendant’s land. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that there was a building used as an existing toilet, but the Defendant constructed a warehouse by reducing the size of the area in 190.

On the other hand, according to the video of the evidence No. 5, the witness G’s testimony as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to believe that G is the Plaintiff’s family member, and the statement of evidence No. 9 is insufficient to admit the above assertion. However, according to the video of the evidence No. 5, the building is larger than the present warehouse as alleged by the Defendant.