A. The petitioner-gu, Cheongju-si, the petitioner-gu, C, 129 square meters above ground, and the mentor and mentor of soil brick, and the branch roof are one-story housing.

A. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff was donated from Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, the father of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant site”) with C large 129 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 29, 2014.

B. On October 15, 2008, the Defendant: (a) sold at the auction the land of Cheongju-si, the petitioner-gu, the Dong-gu, the Dong-gu, the 89 square meters adjacent to the instant site; and (b) soil brick, stone stone, stone, stone, brick, and 29.75 square meters on the land; and (c) soil brick, stone, stone, brick, and 13.22 square meters on each of the instant buildings (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”); and (b) completed each of the instant buildings on October 16, 2008; and (c) obtained approval for the use of each of the instant buildings around 1950.

C. However, among each of the instant buildings owned by the Defendant, the part as indicated in Section 1-A of the order and the part as indicated in Section 1-B of the wall of each of the instant buildings (hereinafter “the part as to each of the instant sunken buildings”) among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the part on each of the instant sunken buildings”) are constructed by erosioning each of the relevant parts of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), the result of the appraisal commission to the appraiser and vice governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the preceding paragraph as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove each part of the sunken building in this case to the Plaintiff and deliver the part of the site of this case to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the defendant acquired the part of the land in question as to the land in question by prescription.

Therefore, in case of the transfer of ownership by specific succession during the possession period, if the time of the transfer of ownership is after the completion of the prescription period, in principle, the new owner cannot be asserted for the completion of the prescription period. In this case, the defendant obtained approval for use on or around October 15, 208.