1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is respectively indicated in attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, among the size of 288 square meters in the D Special Metropolitan City D Special Self-Governing City D Special Metropolitan City.

1. The Defendant’s determination as to the cause of the principal claim may be recognized in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s possession of the ground of the principal claim by piling up or planting the spop-up tree in each of the parts indicated in the Map 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 among the parts listed in the Map 1, 2, 4, and 6 among the parts listed in the Map 1, 5; (b) the spop-up tree in each part listed in the 11, 12, and the spop-up tree in each part listed in the table 1, 11, and 12 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “the instant ground object”), without any dispute between the parties; or (c) the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation and the Korea Land Information Corporation branch.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to collect the instant ground and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion on the completion of prescription and the judgment on the counterclaim based thereon

A. A. Around September 14, 1987, the Defendant purchased a river of 5,236 square meters (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”) from the Defendant’s land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, and conducted landscaping on the instant land by setting up a driving school on the ground around 1994, while establishing a driving school on the instant land.

From this point of time, the Defendant had consistently and openly occupied 5 square meters in part on the ship connected to each point of 2, 3, 6, and 2 attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land”). As such, the period of prescription for the Defendant’s possession of the said land has expired.

Accordingly, the defendant filed a claim against the plaintiff as a counterclaim for the execution of the ownership transfer registration procedure due to the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession of the land in the dispute of this case.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s claim for the collection of land and the transfer of ownership constitutes an abuse of rights, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer of ownership should be dismissed.

B. The Defendant’s acquisition of the Defendant’s land was around September 14, 1987, and the Defendant’s acquisition was the Plaintiff.