1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) list the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) among the 1,061m2 of the Nam-gu G road at the port of port.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 14, 1919, the Plaintiff changed the land category of the instant land to a road, constructed a road for the general public’s passage on the instant land including the instant land, and thereafter occupied and used the instant land as a road.

B. On June 23, 1921, the network H acquired the ownership of the instant land. After the death of H on November 28, 1941, the Defendants inherited the instant land in succession and owned the shares as indicated in the attached list of inheritance shares in relation to the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 7, 13 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the principal lawsuit and the cause of counterclaim

A. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim: According to the fact of recognition as to the completion of prescriptive acquisition: The prescriptive acquisition period, which was completed on September 1, 2014, was completed as of September 1, 2014, for which the Plaintiff sought possession of the instant land from October 14, 1919 to 20 years after the Plaintiff’s change of the land category of the instant land into a road, and was in peace and openly occupied and managed as the intent to own the instant land. As such, the statute of limitations for acquisition of possession was completed on September 1, 2014, which was sought by the Plaintiff on the date when H acquired ownership from June 23, 1921, when 20 years have elapsed from June 23, 1921.

Therefore, the Defendants, the owner of the instant land, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on September 1, 2014 with respect to each Defendant’s share in the attached list of inheritance shares in the instant land, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. As to the defendants' defense and the grounds for counterclaim 1, the defendants did not submit any evidentiary materials as to the procedure for acquiring the land of this case and occupied and used the land of this case without permission. Thus, the presumption of possession with autonomy is reversed.