1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. Of the 99 square meters in Jeonyang-gun C, Jeonyang-gun, the indication of the attached drawing 1, 2, 7, 6.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a building with a 99 square meters in Jeonyang-gun, Jeonyang-gun (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and its ground, and the Defendant is the owner of a building with a 23 square meters adjacent thereto.

B. A part of the above Defendant’s building (a cement brick brick house) is located on the part of 6 square meters in a ship (hereinafter “instant land”) which connects each point of the Plaintiff’s land with the indication of the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 7, 6, and 1 in sequence and connects each point of the Plaintiff’s land.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant occupies the land of this case owned by the plaintiff as the site for the defendant's building, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to remove the defendant's building located on the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The summary of the claim is as follows: (a) the Defendant succeeded to the possession of E selling the above building; and (b) the prescriptive acquisition period as to the instant land was completed on March 24, 2006 after the lapse of 20 years from March 24, 1986, which was the time of the commencement of possession of E; (c) therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of such obligation; (d) the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant as to the ownership of the instant land is without merit; (e) the fact that the land area owned by the Defendant is 23 square meters in size; and (e) the fact that the size of the land owned by the Defendant exceeds that of the Defendant’s building is more than 4.9 square meters, there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware from E that part of the building was on another’s land from the time of purchasing the above land and building.

(The land in this case goes beyond 1/4 of the size of the land owned by the defendant) Therefore, the possession of the land due to the intrusion is deemed to be possession which has the intention to own due to the nature of the source of title.