1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the area of 496 square meters prior to Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The instant land was owned by the network K, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on the ground of sale on June 8, 197, and on April 18, 2003.

4. 7. The registration of transfer of ownership has been completed in the future of the plaintiff on the ground of sale and purchase.

B. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”) currently occupies a dry field farming house on the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the principal claim, the defendant occupied the land of this case to interfere with the exercise of the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, unless it proves the title of possession, it shall deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff.

B. On July 26, 1957, the land of this case was acquired by the network K on July 26, 1957 due to the Defendant’s defense and counterclaim claim, and sold to the network M around 58, and the Defendant purchased the land from the network M around 1962.

Therefore, the land in this case is owned by the defendant, and the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the deceased L is null and void, and the transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff is also null and void.

At the time of purchase of the instant land from L, the Plaintiff purchased N andO together with Gyeongnam-gun N and O, and only thought that C’s land was included in the said N and O’s land, but did not recognize that C’s land was also purchased even the instant land located below the morals and axis.

On the other hand, the defendant has the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescription period, since the acquisition by possession of the land of this case was completed in a peaceful performance with the intention of ownership for 20 years from June 8, 197, which is the date of acquisition of the net L's ownership.

Therefore, the plaintiff's name is invalid on behalf of the deceased L's heir.