1. At the request of the change in exchange in the trial, the Defendants are entitled to the Plaintiff’s answer 84 square meters and H.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The following facts may be found in full view of each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6 and 14 (including each number), as well as the whole purport of the pleadings.

With respect to the date on which the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of 1948 was completed with respect to the 84 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in North-gu G G 84 square meters (hereinafter “instant 1”) and H 45 square meters (hereinafter “instant 2 land”), the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 14-1-1 of the evidence No. 1-2 is written as October 12, 1950. However, the evidence No. 14-4 of the above registration, which forms the basis for the above registration, is written as October 12, 1948 (short-term 4281). This appears to have occurred during this process.

10. 12.12. A completed each registration of ownership transfer, and on December 23, 1991, I died, and Defendant A received 3/13 shares, and the rest of the Defendants inherited each of the above 2/13 shares.

B. The original land category of the instant land was “responding” and remains as “responding” due to registration injury. On June 5, 1924, the instant land category was changed to “road” on October 2, 1928.

C. Since then, the instant land was incorporated into lock Road. Since that time, the Gyeongbuk-gun occupied and used the instant land as a road for the general traffic of the general public, and the Plaintiff continued to occupy and use the instant land as a road for the public traffic of the general public by succeeding to the Gyeongbuk-gun on January 1, 1995 due to a change in the administrative jurisdiction.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Gyeongbuk-gun established possession of the land of this case since June 5, 1924 with respect to the land of this case, and since October 2, 1928 with respect to the land of this case, the Plaintiff occupied each of the land of this case as its own intention and up to now. Meanwhile, even if a third party purchaser completed the registration of ownership transfer after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, the original occupant is the first occupant.