1. The Defendant (Counterclaim) indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, and 1 of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 151.4 square meters.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 151.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu D large 59.5 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned site”) adjacent to the instant site, and of an unauthorized building indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant unauthorized building”) constructed on both the instant site and the Defendant’s ground.

C. The instant unauthorized building occupies a part of 40 square meters on board, which connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, and 1 as indicated in the annexed drawing among the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence A1 to 4, result of survey and appraisal by appraiser E, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties concerned seek the removal of the instant unauthorized building owned by the Defendant on the ground of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff and the delivery of its part of the site. Since the period of prescription for the acquisition of possession was completed on or before April 1982 by F as the instant unauthorized building was constructed before F was April 1, 1982, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is not so obligated.

Even if the building without permission in this case was owned after the person who owned the building in this case constructed the building.

Since the owner of the building site and the building is changed, the defendant asserts that the non-authorized building of this case has legal superficies under customary law on the part possessed by the non-authorized building of this case.

3. Determination

A. First, even if the defendant's assertion itself is based on the defendant's claim, the prescription period for the acquisition of possession was completed on April 2002 by adding up the period of possession of the former owner to the period of possession of the former owner.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff paid the successful bid price in the auction procedure of G real estate G in this court on January 2015 and acquired the ownership of the land in this case.