1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated the attached Form No. 8, 9, 10, 11, among the area of 1,002 square meters prior to Gyeong-gun, Sung-gun, Seongbuk-gun, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D, the Plaintiff’s father, was the owner of 1,002 square meters in the 1,002 square meters, which was the owner of the Plaintiff’s Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and, around 1948, E newly constructed a 14,15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 27, and 8 square meters in line with the indication of the attached drawing among the above land (hereinafter “instant land”) on the ground surface of 259 square meters in part (b) in the part (b) in the 259 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On January 1, 1957, E sold the instant building to F, the father of the Defendant, and transferred possession thereof.

C. D died on August 13, 1983, and F died on January 27, 2003.

The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer from the network D on March 20, 1992 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 7500) with respect to the land size of 1,002 square meters prior to C prior to the said C, as the receipt on March 24, 2008 by the Daegu District Court Branch for the reason of sale on March 20, 209.

E. On April 9, 2014, the Defendant solely inherited the instant land and the instant building through an agreement on the division of inherited property with other co-inheritors of the deceased FF on the division of inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1, part of witness G, result of a survey and appraisal entrusted to the Sung-gun branch of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff is presumed to be the owner of the land of this case, and the net F is deemed to have the right to dispose of the building of this case, which is not registered, and the defendant succeeded to it. Thus, the defendant has a duty to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, unless there is no legitimate title.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the transfer registration under the above Act on Special Measures for the plaintiff is null and void.