1. The plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) indicated the attached Form 28. The plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) on the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) on the attached Form 28.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant purchased the instant land on April 4, 198 and owned it up to the present day.

B. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land D (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”) and the building on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) adjacent to the instant land in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul-gu”).

C. On September 6, 1994, the Plaintiff’s reference E built the instant building with construction permission, and obtained approval for use of the instant building on October 24, 1994.

Part of the building of this case is located on the ground of three square meters in the area of "divated" (hereinafter "the occupied part of this case") connected with each point of the attached Form 28, 2, 1, 26, 27, and 28, among the land of this case, which is located on the land of this case.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the result of a request for appraisal of cadastral surveying by the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the acquisition by prescription has been completed by occupying the occupied part of the building of this case in peace and openly with the intent to own the building of this case for not less than 20 years from the time when E constructed the building of this case, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the occupied part of this case to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's possession as the owner of a third party did not complete the prescription period for the acquisition of possession, and rather, the plaintiff must remove the ground building of this case where the land of this case is illegally occupied and deliver it to the defendant.

3. The construction of a building on one’s own premises does not seem to accurately verify the boundary line with the adjoining land, and thus, even if the building causes a part of the adjoining land to be invaded by mistake, that alone cannot be readily concluded that the possession of the adjoining land is not based on the intention of ownership, unless it is caused by mistake.