A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 5, 2002 with respect to the land listed in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On December 24, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on the buildings listed in Annex 2 of the attached Table on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 6-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has continuously occupied the instant building with the intention of ownership for at least 20 years since springing around 1993, and thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the statute of limitations for acquisition of possession of the instant building was completed on December 31, 2013 or on April 14, 2015, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and sought a judgment identical to the primary purport of the claim.

B. Therefore, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s testimony alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s possession of the building of this case from April 14, 1995 to April 20, 1995, including the Plaintiff’s delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from around 1993 or from April 14, 2015 to April 14, 2015.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

3. According to the facts of the judgment on the conjunctive claim, since the Defendant owned the instant building and occupied the instant land, it is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff seeking the removal of interference based on ownership.

4. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.