1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) indicated the attached Form No. A, B, C, and c. on the part of the 420 square meters of land in the Cheongong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the land indicated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on November 2, 2015.

B. On March 2, 2016, the Defendant purchased a D large 329 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) near the instant land, and operates a lodging establishment after completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on April 29, 2016.

C. Of the instant land, a steel pipe b,c, and D fence is installed on the ground connected in order to each point of the following, among the instant land. The Defendant occupies and uses the said bareboat fence out of the said land as its boundary, and the part as referred to in item (a) of paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 of this Article (hereinafter “the part in dispute”) 115 square meters as its parking lot at the lodging facility.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, 15 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the result of the request for surveying appraisal by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant has a duty to remove the said mar fence and deliver the land in the dispute to the Plaintiff, as it interferes with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership by occupying and using the part of the dispute over the instant land.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the acquisition by prescription for the part in dispute is completed for at least 20 years, since the period of possession of E and the Defendant, who is the former owner of the instant building, can not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

In the general building ledger (No. 2) on the building of this case, ① the approval date of use of the building of this case is “A. 24, 1998.” As of the date of closing argument of this case, it does not reach 20 years as of the date of closing argument of this case, and ② The parking lot is written only as “A. 1. 5 square meters (1 square meters)” and it is recognized that E or the Defendant occupied and used the said part as a parking lot for not less than 20 years.