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

2. The Seongbuk-gu Seoul Egi is one of 116 square meters for Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Basic Facts

On November 8, 1989, F, the decedent of the Plaintiffs, acquired the ownership of Seongbuk-gu Seoul E large 116 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ land”), but the Plaintiffs acquired the ownership by inheritance on May 22, 2010.

(Plaintiff A 3/7 shares, Plaintiff B, and C 2/7 shares). North-wester of the Plaintiffs’ land adjoining to the north of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G major 36 square meters, and on that ground, there is a cement of wood and apap evaluation house, the registration of ownership preservation of which was completed around 1966, 7 square meters and 1 junbbes.

The defendant purchased the above G land and buildings from H on January 13, 1982, and acquired its ownership.

(2) The part of the G land in the ship connecting each point in the separate sheet No. 2,9, 10, 11, 3, and 2 among the Defendant’s building (hereinafter “the part of the instant flooded part”) is against the Plaintiffs’ land. The part of the instant flooded part in the ship connecting each point in the separate sheet No. 2,9, 10, 11, 3, and 2 (hereinafter “instant part”).

The bed part of the instant bed part is part of the closed space of the cement brick and the space attached to the water area made by the joint voting of windows, which is used as a warehouse and a prompt drying room.

At the time of purchase from H, the Defendant was in a closed-type attached space, including the part of the instant crime, and was using it as a closed-type attached space after rebuilding around 197.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6 (including provisional number), appraiser I’s survey and appraisal, the parties’ assertion to the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiffs in the judgment parties’ assertion to the principal lawsuit filed a claim for the removal, delivery, and return of unjust enrichment in possession.

The defendant asserts that the prescription period for acquisition of possession was completed with respect to the part of the crime in this case, and at the same time, seeks implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the completion of the prescription period for acquisition of possession as a counterclaim.

However, the defendant acquired the ownership of the defendant's land and the defendant's building on January 1, 1982.