1. The part of the claim for confirmation of ownership among the counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased H, in marriage with the deceased I, formed the South-Namer Network J (Death on June 17, 1922), the South-Namer Network K (Death on November 18, 1922), the women’s net L (Death on February 25, 1924), the Samnam Network M (Death on June 10, 1947), the women’s D, the Youngnam Network N (Death on December 31, 200), the women’s E, and the Defendant F.

B. The deceased M was married with theO and formed Defendant B, South-Nam, Defendant C, a child, and the network N was married with the Plaintiff and formed the deceased P (Death on September 24, 1995), Q, Q, R, R, T, U, and V.

C. On January 21, 1927, the network H completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on January 10, 1927 with respect to the land of 1583 square meters (479 square meters on the registry: hereinafter “instant land”).

The deceased H died in around 1956, and the land of this case is currently possessed by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion asserts that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, either successively donated the instant land from the network N to the Plaintiff in order from the network N to the Plaintiff, or the Plaintiff purchased KRW 1 million with the purchase price of the instant land in around 1978, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff, who possessed the instant land in peace and public performance for at least 20 years with the intent to own the instant land, has a duty to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on or around May 198 with respect to each of the relevant shares stated in the purport of the claim for possession of the instant land.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant land was the possession of a third party, and that it was only inherited by Defendant C, the inheritor of Australia, according to the custom prior to the enforcement of the Civil Act, and did not have been successively donated or sold to the Plaintiff.

B. We examine the judgment, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff was donated in sequence to the Plaintiff, or the Plaintiff’s land.