1. On February 17, 2016, the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with respect to the share of 12/18 out of 1,921 square meters in Ansan-dong-si.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 2:

On September 8, 2016, the deceased G (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died after having left the Defendant’s Intervenor, who was the inheritor and his children.

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant is a child born between the deceased and his former wife (the deceased and H were married on June 26, 1970, but the consultation on April 27, 1987 was married). The deceased and the Plaintiff were married on October 5, 1994 and resided together until the deceased died.

C. From February 17, 1996, the Deceased and the Plaintiff continued to cultivate the F field of 1,921 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Ansan-si from around February 17, 199.

On the other hand, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case on March 9, 1996 due to sale on February 17, 1996.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff and the deceased, who were simple married, continuously occupied the land of this case for twenty (20) years from February 17, 1996. However, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the land of this case in a peaceful and public performance manner (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act); the possessor presumed to have possessed the land of this case as his own intent; the possessor presumed to have owned the land of this case as his co-ownership (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act); the co-owner's share is presumed to have been equal (Article 262 of the Civil Act); and the above provision is presumed to have been applied mutatis mutandis to the possessor's right of possession (Article 278 of the Civil Act); and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff and the deceased completed the prescription of the acquisition by prescription of possession of the land of this case by one-half (1/2) of the land of this case. Accordingly, the defendant completed the procedure for the acquisition by prescription against the plaintiff's inherent share of the plaintiff = 3/1/18/2 +18 (1/23/3/9/9).