1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

However, the following judgments are added to the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land was unregistered.

Even if D’s purchase of the instant housing from April 20, 1996 is a malicious possession of the real estate owned by another person, the presumption of self-owned possession is broken, since D’s purchase of the instant housing from April 20, 1996 was written around June 194.

Since the Plaintiff purchased and commenced possession of the instant housing on August 5, 2009, which was after the registration of ownership preservation on the instant land was completed, the Defendant also shouldered the presumption of possession as the bad faith possession on the instant real estate owned by others.

B. Therefore, according to each of the statements and images as stated in the evidence Nos. 3, and Nos. 2-1 through 9 of the evidence Nos. 2, the instant house appears to have existed on the ground of the instant land from January 1, 1923. Thus, E appears to have succeeded to the possession of the instant land, which is the relevant site, by purchasing the instant house around April 20, 1996.

However, there is no assertion or proof from the plaintiff as to the circumstance that the owner of the previous house in this case is deemed to have occupied the land in this case without permission, and it is presumed that the previous owner has continuously occupied the land in this case with the intent to own the land in this case (the presumption of possession with autonomy is not reversed solely on the ground that the possessor is not recognized as the possessor of the right to possess the land in this case, even though the E or the previous owner did not have the defendant's assertion that he purchased the land in this case from D), and E or the defendant also succeeded to the possession of the previous owner.