1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated the attached Form 1, 2, 3.2, 3.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. D completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Plaintiff’s land on June 26, 1978. On February 26, 2014, D completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on the Plaintiff’s 21st of the same month.

Likewise, on September 22, 1983, D completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Plaintiff’s land for single-story housing 64.53 square meters and affiliated buildings. On February 26, 2014, D completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale to the Plaintiff.

B. On December 26, 1979, E purchased a F 432 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) from D and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

E On March 20, 1980, after obtaining approval for use on the ground of the Defendant’s land for cement brick structure and cross-story stores 214.87 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s building”)

4.7. The registration of initial ownership in respect of the Defendant building was completed.

C. G is awarded a successful bid for the Defendant’s land and building on April 24, 1995 and the same year.

8.18. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer.

Since then, H was awarded a successful bid for the Defendant’s land and building in a voluntary auction procedure on February 18, 2002, the same year.

5. 1.1. The sale to I, and I sold the Defendant’s land and building to the Defendant on July 26, 2007, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

Plaintiff

Land and the Defendant’s land are adjoining one another, and the part “A” (including the eavesd part of the building) of the Defendant’s building was constructed in a state where the Plaintiff’s land was invaded.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 1, the appraisal result by the appraiser J, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged to the effect that part of the Defendant’s building did not infringe on the Plaintiff’s land, according to the appraiser J’s appraisal results and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s claim for exclusion of interference based on the ownership of the first claim on the principal claim was constructed by impairing the Plaintiff’s land as seen earlier, including the wife part among the Defendant’s buildings.