1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. From December 31, 2012 to January 8, 2015, KRW 59,758 and its related thereto.

1. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. From January 1, 2010 to the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) performed concrete packaging on the land of 23 square meters and 10 square meters on the land of 20 square meters and 10 square meters in each of the “B” indicated on the appraisal map; and (b) appraisal in attached Form 20, 21, 22, 23, and 20 are installed on the part of the ship connected each of the said items in sequence; and (c) there is no dispute between the parties.

B. Therefore, barring any special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to remove the above concrete packaging and sewage pipe, deliver the occupied part of the land to the Plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the occupied period.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense and counterclaim

A. (1) The defendant's assertion (1) is the party's assertion that he acquired the ownership of the three land adjacent to the land of this case from December 19, 1987 to the defendant, who acquired the ownership of the land of this case, and the fence installed on the line part (hereinafter "the wall of this case") connected each point of the attached Table 13 to 19 in sequence from around December 19, 1987 with the appraisal of the land of this case 1, 2 and the land of this case, known to the boundary of the land of this case and the three land of this case, and the above appraisal located on the above 3th page of the above 1, 2 of the land of this case as the owner of each "bbbbb" portion (hereinafter "the land of this case") in peace and public performance and possessed the land of this case (hereinafter "b" of this case") with the intention of ownership transfer registration of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the transfer of the land of this case and the return of unjust enrichment is without merit.

(2) The Plaintiff (A)’s possession of the land in the dispute of this case by the Defendant’s concrete packaging, etc. from around 2010, and the Defendant’s possession period also has a dispute over the boundary between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, thus, the Defendant’s assertion on the completion of acquisition by prescription is without merit.

(B) The Plaintiff’s land of this case is 100.