1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated in the attached Form 1, 16, 17, among the land size of 383 square meters in the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a co-owner of the land in the window C of Chang-si, Chang-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant owns the building D and E’s ground warehouse (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) in Changwon-si, and the said warehouse, in sequence, connects each point of the attached Form 1, 16, 17, 10, 11, and 1 among the land in the instant case, the part 19 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant part”) connected each point of the attached Form 1, 16, 17, 10, 11, and 11.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5 evidence, result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Korea Land Information Corporation by this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the cause of the principal claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove the ground warehouse on the land of this case from one of the co-owners of the land of this case and deliver the above part of the land to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the defendant's defense and counterclaim

A. The defendant's assertion has owned land E of the window of Changwon-si from December 23, 1994 and above ground warehouses of this case. The warehouse of this case has infringed on the portion A of this case. The defendant without knowledge of the above intrusion, occupied the portion A of this case for not less than 20 years as his intention to own it.

Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the prescription period for the acquisition of possession was completed on December 23, 2014 with respect to the portion A of the instant case, and sought implementation of the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership based on the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of possession as a counterclaim.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant possessed the warehouse of this case prior to December 23, 1994, and thus possessed for not less than 20 years. The Defendant’s assertion based on this premise is without merit.

(1) The defendant is out of the evidence No. 1 in order to prove the existence of the warehouse of this case.