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

2. The Plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) is the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Plaintiff D.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 4, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the results of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser E, and the overall purport of the pleadings.

On February 4, 1994, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership relating to D-si area of 483 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

B. On October 21, 1995, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on October 20, 1995, with respect to the F 273 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and the above ground wooden tanks’ roof 39.9 square meters, cement block structure roof 18.84 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s building”) and the Defendant’s land and buildings from that time to the date of the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale.

C. From October 21, 1995 to October 21, 1995, part of the fenced part of the Defendant’s building connects each point of the Plaintiff’s land indicated in the attached reference table Nos. 6, 7, 13, 14, and 6 (hereinafter “instant land”).

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff, as the principal lawsuit, seeks the removal of the Defendant’s building, the delivery of the affected part of the land, and the payment of land usage fees in proportion to KRW 200,000 per month from October 21, 1995 to the completion date of delivery of the affected part of the land.

B. The defendant defense against the lawsuit that the prescription period for possession acquisition of the land of this case has expired, and at the same time, seeks implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the prescription period for possession acquisition as a counterclaim.

C. As to this, from October 21, 1995, the Plaintiff acquired the Defendant’s building with knowledge of the fact that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s land and constructed the Plaintiff’s land, and even if so, it is not so.

Even if the defendant purchased part of the plaintiff's land from the plaintiff around September 1999 to use it as an access road to the defendant's land, and around 2005, the plaintiff and the defendant claimed it as a divided issue of the purchase part.