1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court to explain this part of the judgment concerning the facts and the cause of the principal claim is as stated in the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where each “appraisal” of the fourth and second parts of the judgment of the first instance is collectively referred to as “appraisal of the first instance court,” and thus, it is identical to the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court

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

A. On June 14, 1978, the defendant purchased the defendant's land in this case and constructed a building on the above land on September 6, 1985 and completed registration of ownership preservation. At that time, the defendant occupied the land in this case as the land of the above building site, and there is no fact that the above building was newly constructed and extended thereafter.

Even if the plaintiffs were to take the starting point on August 26, 1995 when they succeeded to the plaintiff's land of this case as the starting point on August 26, 1995, since the defendant occupied the part of the land of this case in peace and performance with the intention of possession for over 20 years thereafter, the acquisition by prescription for the land of this case was completed on August 26, 2015.

Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot respond to the claims of the principal lawsuit, and instead, the plaintiffs should implement the procedure of ownership transfer registration, such as the entries in the counterclaim claim.

B. Determination 1) According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to whether the Defendant occupied the part of the instant crime from August 26, 1995, the Defendant constructed a single-story plant facility with Aluminium assembly type on the ground of the Defendant’s land and completed registration of ownership preservation on September 6, 1985. However, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 3 and 13 (including provisional numbers) are acknowledged.

In light of the following circumstances, each entry, Eul evidence No. 12, and the result of the request for measurement and appraisal by the court of first instance for appraiser I of the court of first instance, the defendant submitted to the Gangseo-gu Office for fact inquiry in light of the overall purport of the arguments: