1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that it is difficult to see that the following items are known in addition to the provisions of the first instance court's 4, 13, and 14, and the part of the first instance court's 6, 8, and the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's possession is the possession of the defendant is the possession of the defendant is without merit. Thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the first instance court's judgment except for the addition of the provision of the second, 420, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. As to the plaintiff 1, the time when the defendant accumulated a wall on the land located in the part of the crime of this case, is not around March 28, 1987, immediately after the purchase of the connected land, but around December 24, 1985, after the purchase of F. F. 781 square meters from the Incheon Jung-gu among the adjoining land of this case, the defendant had completed the prescription period for the possession of the part of the crime of this case on December 24, 2005 after the lapse of 20 years from December 24, 1985. The plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case 1 on December 28, 2006 and the land of this case 2 on February 2, 2007 after the expiration of the prescription period for the possession.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant stored a fence around 1985, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and according to the evidence No. 25, the Plaintiff stated that the Defendant was about 30 years in the police investigation process of the case in which the Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant as a crime of border invasion, and thus, the wall was installed in 1984. However, the above statement alone is insufficient to recognize it.

The fact that the Defendant acquired ownership of 383m2 in Jung-gu, Incheon among the adjoining land of this case around March 28, 1987 is as seen earlier, and the Defendant acquired ownership of 383m2 in Jung-gu, Incheon among the adjoining land of this case before acquiring ownership of 383m2 in Jung-gu, Incheon.