beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment shall be modified as follows:
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 4, 1983, the Plaintiff (formerly changed: a limited company) was a company for the purpose of the transportation business of taxi passengers, etc., and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the division of common property on August 2, 1983, the registration of ownership transfer for the purpose of the E-owned property was completed on August 2, 1983. On July 7, 1983, the Plaintiff (formerly changed to the “E land”) acquired shares with the limited-liability company, the limited-liability company, the new transportation (formerly changed to the “new automobile maintenance business of a limited liability company”). The Plaintiff entered the D land (hereinafter “D land”) through the said E-owned land as a public land (hereinafter “D land”).
B. On March 27, 1999, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the 2,152 square meters of a gas station site A (hereinafter “A”) and the 668 square meters of a gas station B (hereinafter “B”) in Seongdong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) and operated the gas station at a place.
C. On September 1, 1997, the Plaintiff sold his share in land E to a new transport company, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of a new transport company on September 1, 1997.
From January 1, 2003 to January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff used the part (i) of the attached Table 2 drawings No. 8, 9, 28, 29, 30, 27, and 8 in the order of accompanying drawings No. 8, 28, 30, 27, 27, 31, 20, and 21 of the attached drawings No. 2, 27, 30, 31, 20, and 21 of the land No. 2, among the land No. 8, 9, 28, 29, 30, 27, and 21 of the land No. 2 and the land No. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, 30, and 16 of the land No. 2, which are the only part of the Plaintiff’s access road No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant site”).
E. On May 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the instant road site was owned by the Defendant and demanded the Plaintiff to immediately suspend possession of the instant road site and prevent the Plaintiff’s passage.