1. An appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and a claim filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for a counterclaim that is exchanged in this court.

1. The reason why the court should explain this part of the judgment as to the basic facts and the claim on the merits is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff's 13th 13th son of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the defendant" as "the defendant". Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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

A. On March 5, 1981, the Defendant asserted that the purchase and sale claim (the main claim part of the counterclaim) was made by the Defendant from D and G, which were co-owners at the time of the instant land.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on June 24, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer within the scope of inheritance (2/15 shares) among the issues in the instant case, on the grounds of “the donation on June 21, 2016,” within the scope of donation (11/15 shares), from the remaining successors except for E’s shares.

(2) We examine the judgment, Eul evidence Nos. 3, and there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the evidence, and there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the defendant purchased the key part of the instant case only with the testimony of H and Eul evidence Nos. 9 and 10 by the witness of the first instance trial. There is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, the defendant does not have a specific assertion as to the cause of the claim seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff 11/15, which was completed due to the above donation.

Therefore, the part of the defendant's defense and counterclaim, which are premised on the defendant's purchase of the issues of this case from D, are without merit.

B. As to the claim for the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession (the conjunctive claim part out of the counterclaim) (1), the Defendant asserted that the ownership transfer registration has been made in D on August 29, 1981 after purchasing the key part of the instant case from D.