A. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased 1,944 square meters prior to F, and completed the registration of transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on January 14, 2014, and divided the same into C, and 360 square meters into G, respectively.

B. The Defendant owns 2,050 square meters adjacent to F, C, and G land (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) and owned the said land and F, C, and C, with a height of about five meters on the boundary of the said land and C, and up to 30 meters in length, the instant embankment.

(c) The land owned by the Defendant is located in a higher area than the land owned by the Plaintiff on the stable. The ground for recognition is without any dispute, each entry (including a provisional number), Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (each video and the purport of the whole pleadings, including each number), are located in the stable.

2. Determination as to the removal of a stable and the claim for the delivery of land

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is the owner of C’s land. As a result of the Plaintiff’s commission of appraisal to the director of the office and branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that part of the instant axis is installed on the ground of not less than 5m2 in the attached Form No. 7-10, 14, and 7, which connected each point of the above land among the above land, on the ground of not less than 5m2 in the ship. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the part of the axis in which the Plaintiff committed land C in the instant embankment and return the part

B. The defendant's assertion 1 as to the defendant's argument that the stable price of this case was not owned by the defendant is not the owner of the stable of this case, and thus the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request

In this case, it is reasonable to view that the instant axis was also acquired by purchasing land E, which is the site, even if the Defendant did not directly construct the instant axis, as alleged by the Defendant, even if it was not directly constructed, it is reasonable to view that the instant axis was also acquired by acquiring the ownership, which is the object of the instant axis.