1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

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

2...

1. The reasons why this Court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the fact that each “written order” of No. 5, 6, and 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is referred to as “written claim”, and therefore, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine both the principal lawsuit and the judgment and the counterclaim.

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to remove each of the above buildings, deliver part of the land (iv) and return the rent amount equivalent to unjust enrichment from August 1, 2002 to the completion date of delivery of the above land, since the acquisition by prescription against the part (d) by the Defendant as to the land (e) part (v), (vi), and (vii) on the land owned by the Plaintiff, and occupied and used each of the land (v) part (vii) on the land owned by the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s main claim of this case, which is liable for the registration of ownership transfer, is against the good faith principle or constitutes abuse of rights. On the other hand, on May 6, 2015, K acquired the ownership of land C, and thus, it is impossible to perform the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of completion of prescription against the Plaintiff’s Defendant (d) part (v) land due to nonperformance liability, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages equivalent to the value of the land (d) part).

B. According to the purport of subparagraph 15, the part of the claim for removal and delivery, as stated in the evidence No. 15, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Daejeon District Court’s judgment on land C, as it can be acknowledged that the said land was sold to K in a voluntary auction procedure, and that K paid in full and acquired the ownership on May 6, 2015. Thus, the Plaintiff who lost the ownership of land C has no right to claim removal and delivery against the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.