2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D major 399m2 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ land”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-gi- 199 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and the building on its ground attached to the Plaintiffs’ land.

C. The Defendant, among the Plaintiffs’ land, owns a fence on the ground of 1.5 square meters in part “(1.5 square meters)” connected in order to each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 9, 11, and 10, connected to each point of the following: “(10, 7, 8, 9, and 10 square meters in part(3.1 square meters in part) in the ship connected to each point of the same appraisal drawings.”

(hereinafter the part of the plaintiffs' land occupied by the defendant is referred to as "the part in possession of the defendant"). 【No dispute exists concerning the ground for recognition, each entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the result of the appraisal by the appraiser Lee Woo, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant who occupies and uses the part occupied by the defendant among the plaintiffs' land is obligated to remove the fences owned by the above defendant on the ground to the plaintiffs who are the land owners, and return the rent equivalent to the rent by the date of completion of the removal of the fences as sought by the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The fence in the part of the Defendant’s assertion was first installed in the same place prior to 20 years, and the Defendant occupied the occupied part in peace and openly with the intent to own it. As such, the acquisition by prescription was completed.

Therefore, the defendant has a legitimate right to possess the occupied part.

B. The possessor is presumed to have occupied in a peaceful and public performance by his/her own intent pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, if the nature of the possessor’s right is not clear, the possessor, who is the content of possession with intention to own, should be determined by the nature of the possessor’s source of possession. Therefore, the possessor is actively the possessor.