A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 12,300 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant is the owner of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2,380 square meters adjacent to the instant land.

B. The Defendant occupies 16 square meters of the part inside the instant land (hereinafter “the part in possession of this case”) connected in order to indicate 1, 2, 3, and 1 drawings among the instant land (attached Form 1) by installing a fence and a provisional building.

In addition, the portion of the instant land (hereinafter “instant passage”) connected in sequence of each point of 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, among the instant land, is used as a cargo vehicle having access to the Defendant’s workplace.

C. On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the occupied portion.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 8, 21 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Removal of the structure installed in the occupied part of the instant case, and the Defendant’s request for delivery, without permission, continue to possess the building and fence installed in the occupied part of the instant case. The Plaintiff seeks removal and delivery of the said structure installed in the occupied part of the instant case. 2) The Defendant filed a claim for the prohibition of passage along the instant road installed in the direction where the instant land exists, and used the instant road as the Defendant’s truck access road.

However, although the Plaintiff or the former owner of the instant land did not permit the use of the instant road, and it is anticipated that many people will use the instant road by creating a future complex, it is likely that a safety accident will occur if the Defendant continues to use the instant road as a cargo lane.

The plaintiff seeks prohibition of passage through the road of this case, which the defendant uses without permission.

B. The defendant's assertion that the passage of this case is the road of this case.