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

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) resists the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 23, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 155/190 shares of the Plaintiff’s land of this case.

B. On March 12, 1987, the Defendant purchased D & 588 square meters (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”) and its ground buildings (hereinafter “the instant building”) at the port of port adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land.

C. At the time of the Defendant’s purchase of the Defendant’s land and building, soil fences existed between the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land. However, the said soil fenced the Plaintiff’s land, which was installed on the instant dispute’s land. The Defendant owned the said soil fence, and occupied and used the instant dispute’s land as the site for the instant building.

On 2012, the Defendant installed a knife fence on the knife of the soil fenced by the stormer.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including the number of each unit) or video, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal to the chief of the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation branch office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the principal lawsuit, there is a knife fence installed on the land in the dispute of this case owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to remove the knife fence installed on the land in the dispute of this case and deliver the land in this case to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

B. As to the determination of the Defendant’s defense of the prescription period for the acquisition of possession and the cause of the counterclaim, the Defendant asserted that the prescription period for the acquisition of possession with respect to the land in the dispute in this case has expired, and also sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land in

As seen earlier, the Defendant purchased the Defendant’s land and building on March 12, 1987, and possessed the instant dispute land from that time.