1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim brought at the trial.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Of the total area of 1,736 square meters in Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun (hereinafter “instant land”), the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of H, I, and J was made on October 10, 1973 with respect to each one-third portion of 1/3 shares in the Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Since then, with respect to the shares of H among the instant land, the former District Court: (a) No. 26402, Apr. 15, 2008, which was accepted as of Apr. 15, 2008; (b) on March 31, 2008, filed a registration of transfer of the ownership in the name of K for the reason of sale by compulsory auction; (c) on the shares of K, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of L for sale on April 7, 2008, which was received as of Apr. 25, 2008, was filed on April 2008; and (d) on the shares of G and M as of September 3, 2012, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of G and M was completed on the grounds of inheritance on February 26, 2004.

C. On October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff received a decision to permit the sale of the instant land in the auction procedure for partition of co-owned property as to the instant land (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant land on October 6, 2013 after full payment of the sale price on October 31, 2013.

On the land of this case, there are buildings, etc. such as the establishment of the main office or the establishment of a new organization, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building, etc.”) to which the Defendant stated the claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s principal claim, the Defendant possessed the instant land by owning the instant building, etc. and thus, insofar as it does not prove that there exists a legitimate title to possess the instant land, the Plaintiff, the land owner, etc. of this case.