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

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the Defendant added the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph 2, thereby citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s father G (hereinafter “the deceased”) purchased the instant dispute site and adjacent land around 1973, and began to possess the instant dispute site from around 1983. Since the Defendant succeeded to the deceased’s possession by inheritance, the Defendant asserted that he acquired the period of prescription around 2003 years after the lapse of 200 years, and also sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of possession by counterclaim.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's possession is the possession of a third party.

B. We examine whether the Defendant occupied the portion of the instant dispute for 20 years, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the status of the part of the instant dispute in 197 and the status of the part of the instant dispute in 2017, appears to be somewhat different in view of the air transport photographs as to the parts of the instant dispute in question, ② the Deceased purchased a lot of land in the instant dispute, and started a small-scale mass farming business around 1986 for the purpose of obtaining fertilizers. The Defendant started a large-scale mass farming business around 1986 for the purpose of obtaining fertilizers. The Defendant appears to have completed the instant mass farming business in 199, and ③ The evidence presented by the Defendant alone appears to be relatively different in view of the evidence presented by the Defendant, even if the Defendant had taken the part of the instant dispute in question (including the number No. 14).