1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant A and the Plaintiff-Counterclaim C) is 1,277 square meters in Cheong-do, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Basic facts

A. The representative of Plaintiff A (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter only Plaintiff A; hereinafter the same shall apply) is the owner of 931 square meters in size prior to the Cheongbuk-do, Cheongbuk-do, Cheongbuk-do. Plaintiff B was established in around 2004 and registered in the Hanbuk-do, Cheongbuk-do, Cheongbuk-do, and owned a 1,104 square meters in size as a temple, and Plaintiff B occupied and used the said 2 lots of land as a temple site.

B. From June 2005, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Defendant is only the Defendant-owned land) owns a 1,091 square meters and a 1,277 square meters and a 1,277 square meters and a Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter the Defendant-owned land).

C. In the event that the Plaintiffs performed their duties related to temples, or Plaintiff B’s believers Dog-do Dog-do Dog-gun, or used Plaintiff B’s charnel house, it was used as the only passage to pass from the road to the temple site to the temple site. As a result of the Defendants’ surveying the boundary of land owned by the Defendant, it was found that the land stated in the purport of the claim in the main claim (hereinafter referred to as “land incorporated into the road”) was included in the instant road site.

On September 10, 2009, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that the Plaintiff would request restoration as the boundary bank and boundary warning sign installed on the land incorporated into the instant road were damaged. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that the land incorporated into the instant road was used as a road from the past, and the Defendant sent a certificate of content that the land incorporated into the instant road was causing interference with the passage of the general public by installing boundary bank, etc.. In this regard, the Defendant filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff as a crime of invasion upon boundary, and the Defendant filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant as a crime of interference with the general traffic.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3 through Gap evidence 20, and Eul evidence 15 and 16 are numbers.