1. The plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) shall each bear the indication of the appraisal map in attached Form 4, 5, 6, 7, and 4, among the 314 square meters in Busan Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 314 square meters to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that part of the instant single-story building owned by the Defendant was constructed on the part of the instant beds among the land owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff as the principal lawsuit, demanded the Defendant to remove the part of the instant single-story building, which was constructed on the ground of the instant bed part, and deliver the part of the instant bed part.

B. The Defendant alleged that the instant single-story building was originally a single-story building, and the registration of preservation of ownership was made. However, even though the building was newly constructed as a third-story building at around 1985, the changes were not reflected in the register.

(2) On July 10, 1990, the Defendant purchased the 3rd floor building that was newly constructed as above (hereinafter “the 3rd floor building”). On July 10, 1990, the Defendant purchased the 66m2 in Busan, Seo-gu (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and the 3rd floor building in this case, and occupied the Defendant’s land and the 3rd floor building for 20 years thereafter.

Therefore, since the Defendant occupied the part on the instant part of the Plaintiff’s land as the site for the instant third floor building for 20 years, the prescriptive prescription was completed on August 13, 2010, it cannot be complied with the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit. Rather, the Plaintiff as a counterclaim, filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the instant part on the instant part on the part on the land of the Plaintiff for the completion of prescriptive prescription.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the overall purport of oral proceedings, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant occupied the part of the instant intrusion for the period from August 13, 1990 to 20 years, taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5; and (c) evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5; and (d) evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, and 1, and 2 of the evidence

(1) The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the Plaintiff’s land on March 7, 2001.

(2) The defendant's land abutting on the plaintiff's land on August 13, 1990 and the single-story building of this case on its ground.