A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the 3-meter 1, 9645 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and the purport of the pleading, the Defendant installed 3-meter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 of the attached Form No. 1 among the above land in order to connect each point of 3-meter 1, and the same map No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 7-meter 1, 11, 12, 13, 114, 11, and 2-meter 2, 3-meter 2, 26-meter 3, 24, and 3-meter 2,44, and 5-meter 2,44, and 2-meter 3-meter 2,44,44, and 26-meter 2,4.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove each of the above facilities to the plaintiff and deliver the corresponding part of the land to the plaintiff.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff owned the pertinent part of 326 square meters in D Tae-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and that the Defendant installed and owned the pertinent part of 6 square meters in July 7, 200, in line with each point of 34, 35, 36, 37, and 34 square meters in the attached drawing among 326 square meters in the attached drawing among 326 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant

Therefore, there is no reason for the Plaintiff’s claim related to D Tae-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun 326 square meters.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is partially accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.