The judgment below

The part concerning the main lawsuit is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

a counterclaim.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, agreed between C and D to divide the specific part of the instant land into sectional ownership.

The lower court determined that it was difficult to view that there was an agreement on sectional ownership between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”).

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the pleading principle, the probative value of disposal documents, the sectionally owned co-ownership relation, etc.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer arising from a sale among the Defendant’s counterclaim claims on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that D, on June 16, 1982, purchased the land and above-ground buildings in the instant case (a), (b), and (c) on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of a disposal document, contrary to what

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the prescription period for the acquisition of possession under the Defendant’s counterclaim on the ground that the possession of D as to the part of the instant case’s (a) and (b)

Examining the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the destruction of the presumption of independent possession, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for appeal.

4. Ex officio determination and determination on the fourth ground of appeal

A. The lower court’s judgment 1.