1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) filed an additional counterclaim in this court.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the claim is as follows, except for the case where the judgment on this part is reversed, since it is identical to the statement of 6 to 6 to 11 of the judgment of the first instance, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Completioned Parts]

A. The Plaintiff B’s “Plaintiff” was added to “B”.

B. On the 3rd page 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court of first instance, “B,” “I,” “I,” “I,” and “I,” “I,” respectively.

C. On No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first-class 21 to 5 pages 1 G with the witness G in the first-class trial. D.

The 5th page 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as the “Witness K”), “Witness G” as “Witness G of the court of first instance,” and “this court” as “court of first instance”.

E. On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the 5th page 14 of the said judgment “air photograph (No. 6-2)” was written with “air photograph (No. 6-1).”

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. G, the cause of the counterclaim, as a result of the J’s ruling on the instant land No. 1 and No. 2, for which the J had become a farmer, has occupied the portion of possession of the instant one as well as the intent to own the farmland.

Meanwhile, after the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land No. 1 on September 30, 1997, the registrant of the instant land No. 1 is identical until now. As such, the Defendants may calculate the time of voluntary commencement after J commenced possession with respect to the instant land No. 1 as the starting point and the total length of the Defendants’ possession can be calculated by adding up 20 years.

I would like to say.

Therefore, with respect to the portion in possession of the instant case 1, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement each of the instant procedures for the transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on June 17, 2015, with respect to the portion in possession of the instant case 1136/1706 shares to Defendant C, on June 17, 2015, which was calculated 20 years from June 16, 2015, the day immediately before June 16, 2015, which was the day immediately preceding the day when the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

(b).