1. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaims are all dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the judgment of the court of first instance on the prescriptive defense of the prescriptive defense of the septic tank part 7 to 9, 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part on the objection of abuse of rights against the removal of septic tanks is as follows; the part on the objection of abuse of rights against the removal of buildings not exceeding 10, 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance except for each dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph (3); therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. (2) Determination: (a) If the ownership transfer registration is made in another person’s name under the possession of one’s own real estate, the possession of one’s own real estate cannot be deemed as the possession based on the prescriptive acquisition; and (b) the occupancy based on the prescriptive acquisition begins only when there is a change in the ownership. As such, the starting point of the prescriptive acquisition is the date of change in ownership, namely, the date of ownership transfer registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da5860, Mar. 14, 1997); and (c) as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 12, the date of the ownership transfer registration after dividing the instant land C from D before subdivision to the Defendant from the Plaintiff on October 10, 208, since the date of the ownership transfer registration from the Plaintiff on October 10, 2008, it is evident that the Plaintiff’s prescriptive acquisition should be calculated from October 10, 2008 to the end of the argument.

Therefore, the plaintiff's prescriptive defense is without merit without further review.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's removal of septic tanks constitutes an abuse of rights.

However, if the exercise of the right is subjectively trying to inflict pain and damage on the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and it can be viewed that it violates the social order objectively.