1. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),

A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Company B is with respect to the area of 413 square meters per Guri-si I miscellaneous land.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land in this case was originally owned by Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”). On October 29, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on the grounds of sale on the grounds that the land was sold.

D 29,340,000 won Da29,340,000, 12,5800 won for a farming association association association with maximum debt amount B2,960,000 won for the mortgagee’s maximum debt amount

B. As to the instant land, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment of each of the following items (hereinafter “registration of establishment of each of the neighboring areas of this case”) that the debtor was the Plaintiff was completed on May 9, 2005 by the Jung-gu District Court registry office No. 14549, May 9, 2005.

C. On April 8, 2010, Defendant E, G, and H inherited the saidJ’s property upon the death of the saidJ.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 17, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the Defendants, etc. and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the purchase price equivalent to the purchase price as the secured debt. However, the extinctive prescription of the secured debt was completed after the lapse of 10 years from the time when the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage was completed, and thus, the Plaintiff sought the Defendants from the implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation of the

B. Defendant B and D’s assertion 1) purchased the land in Kuri-si and sold the land in nine lots. At the time, Defendant B did not sell the land in order to jointly use it as a passage and intended to own each share in proportion to the purchaser’s land ratio. However, Defendant B and D completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land in this case in the future of the Plaintiff, who is one of the joint buyers, with a share equivalent to 30.38 square meters in size, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land in this case in order to prevent the disposal thereof.

3. Defendant.