1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) indicated the attached Form 1 and 2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) on the ground of 1,170 square meters above C 1,170 square meters at the time of smuggling.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraisal commission made by this court, the Plaintiff owned CY 1,170 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant, among the instant land, owned the instant land by holding in sequence 1,2,3,4, and 1 the land of the attached Form No. 35.72 square meters (hereinafter “the instant farmland”), which connected each point in sequence among the instant land, and occupied the instant land. The rent from January 15, 2014 to January 14, 2015, the annual rent from January 14, 2015 to January 14, 2015 can be acknowledged as identical.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant farmland to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant land, deliver the instant land, and remove the instant farmland from January 15, 2014, and pay the money calculated at the rate of KRW 161,667 per month until the Plaintiff either delivers the instant land or loses its ownership.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense against the main lawsuit and the cause of the counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s father D purchased the instant land on September 3, 1951 and registered it in the Defendant’s name in the Defendant’s form H (Death on February 5, 1988). On June 14, 1989, the Defendant’s father D sold the instant land to the Defendant.

The defendant, while getting down to the highest place in Busan and around April 23, 1994, had been residing in the Dogna in the instant land, and had been living in the farmland of this case until now since the completion of the formation of the Dogna, and had occupied the land of this case in peace and public performance for twenty (20) years from April 23, 1994, and acquired the prescription on April 23, 2014. Thus, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim, and instead, the plaintiff cannot accept the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the transfer of ownership on the land of this case, due to the prescriptive acquisition on April 23, 2014.