1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated the attached Table 2, 3, 4, 5, on the part of the Gyeonggi-gun 3045 square meters, among the 3045 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-gun C.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. Since D’s completion of the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on August 25, 198 with respect to the land of 3045 square meters (hereinafter “C land”) prior to Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, the Defendant, who is the spouse of D, completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of inheritance by agreement and division on October 15, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer made on March 10, 1989 with respect to E, E, 1705 square meters adjacent to C land (hereinafter “E land”).

C. Of the land C, there are one house on the land in the instant dispute (hereinafter “instant house”), and the Plaintiff currently resides in the instant house.

On the other hand, E and F land are adjacent to each other in the vicinity of C land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 9, the result of this court's commission of measurement and appraisal to the two horizontal branches of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion purchased the instant house from G on August 16, 1989, the Plaintiff owned the instant house for more than 20 years up to now, and occupied the instant dispute land, which is the site for the instant house, in a peaceful manner as the owner’s intent to own it. Therefore, the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession of the instant dispute land was completed.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to execute the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land in dispute of this case on the ground that the prescription period for possession is completed.

B. In light of the following circumstances, we examine whether the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant house, occupied the instant land for more than 20 years, based on the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertions Nos. 1, 6, 8, 12, and 15, as well as the overall purport of the pleadings. In light of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above premise is insufficient.