1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) indicated the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on the annexed map among the land size 28087 square meters in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

1. Evidence 1, A4-1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings, which have been recognized;

A. From D on August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the Suwon-gu Suwon-si C forest land of 28087 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) due to trading on August 11, 2014.

B. The Defendant constructed and used the part (c) of the instant land, which connects in sequence 1,2, 3, 2, 2, 3, and 1652 square meters in the part (b) of the ship (hereinafter “the part in possession of this case”) which connects 1652 square meters of the attached drawings among the instant land (hereinafter “the part in possession of this case”). The Defendant constructed and uses the part (c) of the 60 square meters in the ship, which connects 7, 6, 5, 4, 7, in turn, to the same drawings.

2. The allegations by the parties and the principal lawsuit and counterclaim by this Court shall be considered together.

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the Plaintiff’s right of removal and delivery, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant house installed on the instant land and deliver the occupied part to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) as to the Defendant’s assertion (A) on January 12, 1990, paid KRW 2.5 million to E, the owner of the instant land, as of January 12, 1990, and purchased approximately KRW 500 square meters and approximately 39 square meters of the instant land, and occupied the instant part of possession with intent to own for about 20 years since around that time, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant portion on January 12, 2010 on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period. The Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant portion on January 12, 2010, while the ownership transfer registration was completed in the Plaintiff’s name while the instant portion of possession was not completed after the prescriptive acquisition of the ownership transfer on January 12, 2010, but the Defendant’s possession continues to exist after the change in ownership, and the Plaintiff still can claim the prescriptive acquisition against the Plaintiff.

(B) The defendant in response to the plaintiff's counterclaim on 2005.